Pissing Contest

I don't usually respond to these fanatics, but I just happened to poke my head back in to his blog and see his complete misrepresentation of everything that I said. It also bolsters my "libs as Kids" theory.

So without further ado:

***

I’ve noticed that you keep poking your head into my blog either hoping for a response or some fodder. Well, here ya go, E. (how pretentious) David!

Way back in February, I posted a cute story about Ella voluntarily sharing her piece of cake with Chloe, and some neanderthal blogger named "Exile from Hilary's Village" felt the need to leave a very nasty comment calling me names and giving me parenting advice: "Be a man" and beat my two year old daughter because she's crying. He followed that up by pointing out, "I'm sure that your wife is thrilled with you. You're as much of a woman as she is. In trying to please women, you have become one." A month later, he was still so upset at my post, so horrified that a girl would share with her sister--doesn't she know, the Republican won the election, we live in an "ownership society" now and if you have nothing, no one is supposed to lift a finger to help you in any way?

I prefer to be called a ‘Neandertal-American’. Neanderthal is so 20th century.

The fact that you’re whining about somebody “calling me names” validates my entire theory that liberals are nothing more than children who have, emotionally, never grown up. Not to mention the fact that you also, later, call me a “bully”. Those are the two worst things that can happen to a kid, aren’t they? Being “called names” by a “bully”.

As far as giving you “parenting advice”, I never advised you to beat your daughter, and you know it. In fact, what I told you was, “(And) I'm sure that you assume that, being a Republican, I regularly beat my child. The fact is, I swatted her butt once and felt so bad about it that I could never do it again.” And that is a direct quote. You, sir, are a liar. I have the dated e-mail to prove it. But I expect no less from a liberal. Wasn’t it Marx who said, “The end justifies the means”? Which means that principles go out the window when you’re trying to achieve your objective. In this case, showing what a “Neanderthal” (sic) I am.

Yes, it did take me a month to get to your post but, being a single-daddy, I post when I have time. It just so happens that it took a month because, while interesting in a philosophical way, it wasn’t really all that important. It’s called “bookmarking” something so you can come back to it. I wasn’t upset about it, just amused that it made my point so well.

As far as the “ownership society” goes, it’s obvious that you think it’s wrong for able-bodied adults to take care of themselves instead of letting the government (i.e. mommy) take care of them. I wasn’t speaking of two-year-olds and, again, you know it.

You also seem to leave out the fact that I wasn’t exactly “horrified” by kids sharing with each other. In fact, it had nothing to do with your kids, in particular, at all. What I said was:

“I have no problem with people sharing within a family. In fact it was very nice of your daughter to do that. Being one of the intellectual left, I'm surprised that you missed my whole point. It wasn't that someone was sharing with someone else. It was the comparison between a small child whining, screaming and crying because they didn't get all that they wanted and the Left constantly doing the same thing.”

But, just like everyone on the Left, you can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it. Any perceived criticism is taken personally. I wasn’t commenting on your kids or your parenting skills. I was commenting on the fact that liberals are, emotionally, children. The fact that you continually fail to see that just proves my point.

I find it amazing (well, not really) that you and all of your liberal friends have managed to completely miss the point and blow this all out of proportion. If I would have found the post on the blog of a Conservative (unlikely), I would have come to the same conclusion. It’s about liberals acting like children. When they don’t have what they want, they expect other people to just give it to them.

as I say, he was still so angry over my post, that a month later he put up a post on his own blog continuing the attack on me, and also ridiculing my children and calling my wife names (because he's a member of the party that believes in "moral values" and traditional conservative lifestyles, where when you come upon someone you disagree with you froth at the mouth and scream angry epithets at them). In that post he said, "Just the fact that his kids are named Chloe & Ella tells me all I need to know about him." An anonymous commenter who came upon this post before I did asked him what my childrens' names told him. His answer: "the kid [is going to] have to spell [it] for people every time she's asked her name FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE." Because Ella and Chloe are such terribly complicated names, though not too complicated for Exile to spell, just for "a whole lot of people out there with public-school educations who won't be able to" (though, according to Exile, the real problem is that Democrats and academics look down at others. Heh).

Again, you give yourself way too much credit to think that I was “angry” over your post. It just summed up the two-year-old mindset of liberals wanting “more, more more!!!” so well that I found it amusing. Amusement and anger are very far apart on the emotional scale. In fact, what you libs always see as “hate-filled Republican thinking” is usually either amusement, bemusement or outright disgust with your thinking. That also speaks volumes about your mindset. You automatically go to “hate” when you disagree with us, so you assume that we feel the same. In your childish mindset, there are only opposites: love or hate, nothing in between. You only reserve shades of gray for good and evil.

And, yes, I do believe that it is cruel for parents to give these goofy Junior-high-school-girl-doodle names to their kids. Like I told you (and you neglected to mention), I was married to a woman who had to spell her name every time that she did anything. As I also told you, my name is pretty common but even I have to spell it for people.

Yes, Democrats (at least the liberal ones) do look down upon people in the same way that insecure children try to make themselves look like they know more than the rest of the class.

When I first saw his post, I ignored it for a couple of days. And then I got another of those anonymous troll comments. And the two of them together bothered me, more than they should have. I don't like conflict with people, really. I certainly want people to like me, more than I should. It's probably my great character flaw: I really, really want people to like and respect me. But you know this guy is simply an asshole who enjoys going around saying stupid offensive shit and then patting himself on the back for being so smart--the kind of guy who thought Dubya won that third debate "cause he said 'you can run but you can't hide,' huh-huh-huh-huh."

Wouldn’t “troll” be considered as “calling someone a name”? The hypocrisy is endless here. It’s OK for you to call people names, but you whine like a three-year-old when someone does it to you.

I’m sure that you don’t like conflict and I’m sure that you want people to like you. But my six-year-old-daughter has the same “character flaw”. She came home crying a couple of weeks ago because a little girl up the block said that she didn’t want to be her friend any more. Thank you for making my point.

You can call me an asshole if you like. I won’t even whine about you “calling me names”. What I say may be offensive to you, but it isn’t stupid. My IQ puts me in the 95th percentile of the population. I’m not patting myself on the back about it; while I am proud of it, it’s just a fact. But liberals and children always call people thay disagree with (what else?) “stupid”.

And your point that Dubya (that moniker really doesn’t offend us) may not have won the debate is kind of moot since he won the debate on November 2nd 2004, isn’t it? Wait, let me guess, you think he stole the election just like he did in 2000, right?

So after I got pissed off at the second troll, I went back to this Exile's blog and left him a comment. He responded, calling me some more names and pointing out that he's "at least as intelligent" as me, and claiming that, unlike me, he "live[s] in the real world every day" so he's better than me because I "never get out of the world of 'academia'." [sic]

Aww, I’m sowwy, which other names did I call you that time? Quotes would be nice.

The fact is, I am at least as intelligent as you are. That’s not bragging, that’s a fact. Just in case you think you’re dealing with one of those “knuckle-dragging, gap-toothed, mouth-breathing red-staters”.

And I stand by that statement completely. I do live in a world that you never see. Your wife’s a lawyer (I guess you consider that calling her names, and I do agree that “lawyer” is derogatory these days) and you’re enmeshed in the world of the University. When’s the last time that either of you have been on a factory floor? You know, talking to the “little guy” or, as Marx liked to call him, “the Worker”?

I never claimed to be “better” than you (your insecurity is showing), just that I live in a world that you think you’re trying to help, but of which you know nothing.

Seems that Exile has also been listening to way too much David Horowitz, and it got him into trouble, because he went off on this little diatribe about how much money I earn as a professor and announced, "I'd bet everything that I own that you make more money than I do." Well, there's a bet that I simply couldn't pass up, though because I am in fact a kind soul, even to benighted individuals like this guy, so I made a counter-offer in one of the three long comments I left on his post: "I'll respond to your email and tell you my salary. If it's less than you make, you can leave a comment here apologizing for assuming you know everything about me based on reading one post on my blog." I sent him my yearly salary in an email on Sunday afternoon. He's posted to his blog at least a few times since then, so I know he's seen my emails and my comments, but still no reply from him--no crowing post exulting because he was right and he earns less than I do (which, just from looking at his main page of posts, would certainly have been forthcoming if it had been the case), but also, imagine this, no apology. Despite all of his chest-puffing proclamations of his Real Manhood and his denunciations of me as a girly man, he refuses to "be a real man" and live up to his bets. He's not only a pretension (sic), small-minded bully but also a welcher.

Quite frankly, while I have heard of David Horowitz, I’m not very familiar with his work.

If your family makes more than 35K/year, you’re doing better than I am. The fact that your wife is a lawyer (again with the derogatory ad hominem attacks!) leads me to believe that you’re living better than I am.

Not all Republicans are rich. From my experience the vast majority of them aren’t. It’s just a Democrat stereotype. And here I thought that only Republicans stereotyped people.

I’m sure that you wished to portray me as some redneck, lowbrow idiot who could barely get his words to fit together in a proper sentence, but this will show anyone who wastes his time on your blog that I am perfectly capable of speech.

The fact is, you’ve lied and misrepresented many things on this post. If you care to dispute that, I really do have the dated posts to prove that you are a lying scumbag (ad hominem! ad hominem!). Go ahead and whine. Anyone who lies like you do deserves to be “outed”.

I’ll post this on my blog. Do you have the guts to do the same?

-The Exile

More Succinct, But Less (Manic) Passion

From Philip Terzian at The Weekly Standard. He makes the point that I made below much better than I do; but hey, he's a real journalist and here I sit in my PJ's (well, sweats and a Rolling Stones T-shirt, anyway).

***

That is why Frist needs to concentrate his energies, organize the majority, and face down the challenge posed by Harry Reid and his troops. But let's call this "nuclear option" by its proper name: the fairness option. Senate Democrats are the ones who have, in effect, gone nuclear--requiring a supermajority of 60 senators to approve judges. Listening to Democrats, and reading editorial commentary, Mr. and Mrs. America might have gained the impression that the three-fifths Senate vote required to end debate was dictated by James Madison on his deathbed. Hardly. Cloture is a Senate rule, not a constitutional requirement. It was President Woodrow Wilson, frustrated by the Senate's indulgence of endless talk, who promoted the adoption of Rule XXII, mandating a two-thirds vote for cloture. Sixty years later, Senate Democrats, led by Robert Byrd, reduced the two-thirds requirement to three-fifths. The sacred principle of requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster is neither an ideal of the Founders nor a historic precedent: It is a procedural rule less than 30 years old. And, in the long history of the United States, filibusters have never been used by a minority systematically to block a president's judicial nominees (all emphasis mine, mine, all mine!).

- The Exile

Speak Up!

One of our local lib talk shows was talking about Republicans “getting rid of the filibuster”. The host kept neglecting to mention that we’d be getting rid of it for judicial nominations only.

Two callers in a row had basically the same (incorrect) point: they were worried that if we “got rid of the filibuster” that Republicans could pass any law that they wanted to pass.

The host never once corrected either of them by telling them that it would be done away with in the case of judicial nominees only. It has nothing to do with passing laws or legislation. He knew this, I’m sure. But he was perfectly happy to let the notion get out that we’d be getting rid of the filibuster, period.

There you have the essence of the liberal media. This guy claims over and over that he’s “objective”. But he’s willing to let half-informed people put forth outright lies and/or ignorance and not bother correcting them. He knew perfectly well that what they were saying was wrong.

The one old guy, when asked whether he was “left or right” in his political leanings said, “I don’t know nothin’ 'bout dat left or right stuff, but my party starts with a ‘D’ “. In other words, this guy knows very little about politics, but he agrees with everything he’s being told by the Star-Tribune and WCCO (a.k.a .The Old Neighbor).

There you have the Democrats in this state, if not this whole country: If you asked them, they’d tell you that they know a lot about politics; but if you ask them some of the most basic questions about the process, they haven’t a clue. They are, maybe, half-informed about any given political issue.

It’s obvious that the more informed a person is, the more likely they are to be a Republican.

They also had a political science professor on from Gustavus Adolphus college here in Minnesota which, religious or not, is very liberal. This guy actually said that “the Senate takes it’s traditions very seriously” in recommending that the Republicans don’t take “The Nuclear Option”. He, along with every other liberal and/or Democrat I’ve heard, neglected to mention that it was the Democrats who broke tradition in the first place by beginning to filibuster judicial nominees for the first time ever in the history of this country! Apparently that tradition wasn’t worthy of seriousness.

That point needs to be repeated again and again to counter the intentional neglect of the facts being perpetrated by the MSM. I'm sick of screaming at my TV and radio every time one of our Conservative bretheren miss the opportunity to point that fact out.

We're losing this battle because the Left has managed to frame it as Republicans changing the rules in the middle of the game. Nobody on our side is pointing out that we are just responding to the Democrats who changed the rules first and that we're not getting rid of the filibuster completely.

What the hell is wrong with our side? This is another prime opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party and we just let it slide. Again.

- The Exile

We Care...If You Vote For Us.

Once again the “party of the little guy”, the party that “cares about people” has shown that it’s leaving something out of their party description. It would be more accurate to describe them as the “party of the little guy who can vote for us” and the party that “cares about people who can vote for us”.

By criticizing and attempting to defeat John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee for Ambassador to the U.N. , they are, in effect, saying that they don’t have a problem with business as usual at the U.N. The status quo is just fine, and they certainly don’t want anyone going in there and shaking things up.

U.N. workers and troops are raping women and children? Well, yes, that’s tragic, but they can’t vote for us, so no big deal.

U.N. officials stole billions of dollars from Iraqi citizens? Money that was supposed to be spent on food and medicine and, when it wasn’t, caused an untold number of deaths amongst the “little guys”? Well, while we “care about people”, what we mean is that “we care about people who can keep us in power”.

Hundreds of thousands of "little guys" being murdered in Africa? Well, helping people who can't vote for us would be risky, so we'll just endlessly debate what to do in the U.N.

I’ve always had a problem with the label “compassionate conservative” just because the adjective should be unnecessary; we are, and always will be more compassionate than the Left because we see people as individuals rather than as voting blocks (gay, black, feminist, etc.). We give more to charity (except for Bill Clinton who even donated his old underwear…ewww), and we would rather teach people to make their own way in life than give them some measly handout that’ll keep them in poverty.

And, of course, they are now trying to assassinate Bolton’s character by calling him (what else?) a bully! Children, every last one of them.

- The Exile

Precision Tune Thieves

Time to step away from politics for a bit here, but if you bear with me, you may save yourself a lot of time, money and frustration.

Last week I brought my SUV into Precision Tune to have them fix a few minor problems that I never seemed to get to. During the course of their inspection, they found that I had a bad axle-shaft seal, so I told them to replace it.

After I picked the vehicle up, I noticed that there was a whine coming from the rear-end. At first I thought that they may have accidentally installed a liberal, but it was a different kind of whine.

I brought the truck back and left it with them so that they could check it out. When I called later in the day to see if it was ready to pick up the guy told me that he was just preparing an estimate. “An estimate?” I asked, “but the noise is from something that you did. It didn’t make that noise when I drove it on to your lot; it did make that noise when I drove it off of your lot.”

He hemmed and hawed for awhile about wheel-bearings and other stuff, so I rudely interrupted him and told him that I’d be there in half-an-hour and we’d discuss it.

Well, to make a long story short, he refused to fix his mistake and I’m pretty sure that I shocked every one of his employees and a few people in the waiting area.

After talking to a few people, I figured out what the whine was: when they changed the shaft seal, they had to drain the differential. When they refilled it, they used lightweight synthetic oil instead of the 90-weight gear oil that was in there. It will work that way, but nobody in their right mind would accept the loud whine that it makes.

What this tells me is that he didn’t even bother trying to find out what was wrong with it; he was just going to charge me for more stuff that I didn’t need! Wheel bearings have nothing to do with the differential, but there they were on the estimate. That is just, plain stealing.

And a few days ago I noticed that I have a new puddle on my garage floor that never used to be there. I hunted down the leak and it turns out that one of the nuts that hold my valve cover in place was missing. By the look of it, it had been there fairly recently. And, coincidentally, the manager had told me that I had a bad valve cover gasket when it was originally in there.

I had also originally asked them to find the rattle in my exhaust system. They told me that my exhaust manifold was cracked. I traced it to the cage that surrounds the catalytic converter, which isn’t even close to the exhaust manifold.

These people are lying, thieving hacks.

I wrote to their company headquarters, who put me in touch with a local rep here in town. He suggested that I take it to a mechanic that I trusted and if he found anything wrong with it, we’d all get together and talk about it. I told him that if I knew a mechanic that I trusted, do you think I would’ve taken it to Precision Tune? I also told him that I didn’t have the time to piss away running all over hell trying to get their mistakes fixed. I wasn’t happy with their work, their ethics or their attitude, and any reputable company would be very concerned about that and try to make the customer happy. I told him that I’d just fix it myself, but would miss no opportunity to warn everyone that I can away from Precision Tune.

And this is part of that process. Be warned: these people have no scruples. Their only principle is more money at any cost. They will not hesitate to screw you. Stay as far away from them as you can and warn anyone that you know who has car issues to do the same.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Just Plain Funny

Michael Moore might be old news but this gem from the archives of Frank J. <http://www.imao.us/archives/000583.html> deserves to be dusted off:

And what's with your statement about how the country is actually all liberal and that the people booing you were actually booing the booers? Do you actually believe that? What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Are there elves and leprechauns there? If there are, and I caught one of those hippy leprechauns and he told me, "If you don't harm me and let me go, I'll give you three wishes," (that would be in Irish brogue; I don't know how to represent that typing) I wouldn't let him go, because the only thing I would want would be to give that stupid pinko leprechaun a beating. To be clear, I wouldn't beat him as much as a regular size hippy, because that would be like a huge beating to him because of his small size, which isn't his fault. But I assure you it would be a sound beating, and, when he went back to his leprechaun home, he'd tell the other leprechauns, "Aye, what a sound beating I received; quite proportionate to my size."

Bloody Leftist Leprechauns!

Update: I scarfed this whole from Fraters Libertas' website and forgot to credit them. My apologies. I'm not worthy to lick the floor you walk on at Keegan's Irish Pub.

Way too

Blogger's server was apparently down yesterday, so I'll have to make up for it by spewing twice the amount of hate-filled conservative rhetoric today. Long live the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

ReTed

(This man)'s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is - and often is the only - protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our Democracy.

In the preceding paragraph, Ted Kennedy is speaking of:

1) John Ashcroft (2001)
2) George Bush (1999)
3) Newt Gingrich (1994)
4) Robert Bork (1987)
5) What does it matter? His rhetoric is the same no matter who he's attacking.

If you answered #4 , you really know your stuff; but if you answered #5, you would also be correct. Ted Kennedy has made that speech hundreds of times. His notes just say "insert name here".

However, while looking up examples of similar, if not exact copies, of the above speech, I noticed something that made my point that he's a lazy, regurgitating hack even better. To wit:

George Washington University 9/27/04
“Thank you Steve, for that generous introduction.”

DNC address 7/27/04
“Thank you, Bob Caro, for that generous introduction.”

Brookings Institution 4/5/04
“Thank you, Tom for that generous introduction.”

Council on Foreign Relations, 3/5/04
“Thank you, Glenn Kessler, for that generous introduction.”

Center for American Progress 1/14/04
”Thank you General Nash for that generous introduction.”

Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 9/27/2002
“Thank you, Dr. Fukuyama for that generous introduction.”

Liberty Baptist College, October 3 1983 (!!!)
“Thank you very much Professor Kombay for that generous introduction”

This guy has been coasting on Scotch and his family name for 35 years. He doesn't even need to come up with anything original, including his opening line. But the Left (and much of America) reveres him because of his family name.

I've always wondered: if JFK hadn't been assassinated would he have gone as far Left as Teddy has? Would Teddy himself have gone that far? Would the whole Democrat party have gone so far to the Left so as to make JFK's policies look like the present-day Republican agenda?

Regardless, Sweaty Teddy has been spewing the same hate-filled scare tactics for the past 35 years. He's too fat and lazy to come up with anything original because he knows that he doesn't have to.

But the people of Massachusetts don't seem to care. They have a celebrity with nothing more than his last name to recommend him. Apparently that's enough.

- The Exile

Mike, where are you?

Has anyone heard from Michael Moore lately? I haven't heard his jowls flapping for a couple of months now.

Maybe somebody should run up to this "man of the people's" mansion and make sure that he didn't get a cheeseburger lodged in his throat or something.

Or could it be that the Democrat party (including the MSM) realized that he's a liability and aren't returning his phone calls?

I certainly hope not. He was one of our best anti-lib advertisements.

- The Exile

MSM - Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the DNC

As an addendum to my earlier post on how the MSM is trying to make all Conservatives out to be "religious fanatics" I offer the following.

As I said in my profile, I'm not particularly religious. I don't even go to church on Holidays unless my daughter is in some pageant or other. If I own a Bible, I couldn't tell you where it is. Yes, I believe in God, but I'm about as far from fanatical about Him as you can get.

The more I started thinking about it, the more I realized that the vast majority of the Conservatives I know are about the same as I am when it comes to religion. I'm talking about 80-90% of them.

What the MSM is trying to do is frighten people like me into believing that we're aligning ourselves with religious people who want to destroy the world to bring on the Rapture.

You don't believe that that's what these liberals think? These nutcase, conspiracy-theorist lefties believe exactly that. Read this if you don't believe it. It's by Bill Moyers who spent many years and many of my tax dollars preaching liberal hatred of Conservatism on PBS. Not usually considered a far-left extremist TV station. But that's relative.

So don't let them fool you into believing that Religious = Conservative. Although some religious people are Conservative, not all Conservatives are religious people.

I know plenty of very religious people, too. They can be as religious as they want to be wherever they want to. I don't have a problem with it. That's one difference between me and a liberal.

- The Exile

Mentally Handicapped MSM

The coverage of the Pope’s funeral brought out the idiocy in the MSM. Again.

The blatherers on CNN actually pointed out the fact that some of the world leaders were seated in alphabetical order…if you used the French names of their countries.

What the hell did that have to do with anything? I’m pretty sure that the French weren’t running the seating arrangements for the Vatican. And even if they were, so what? They could have seated them according to shoe-size or height, I guess. This woman was just trying to show off her “sophistication”. “I even THINK in French (sniff)”. More likely somebody else pointed it out to her.

And somewhere else, possibly CNN again, I heard one of them say something to the effect of, “for the size of this crowd, it’s remarkably nonviolent”.

What the hell did they expect at a funeral for a Christian religious leader? I’ll tell you what they expected: running street-battles among all of these warmongering “religious conservatives”.

And I’d bet you that it never crossed their minds that, whenever you get any sizeable crowd of their liberal friends together, you almost automatically have riots.

Or maybe they were thinking that it would turn out like your typical mid-east religious leader’s funeral. Anybody watch Yasser Arafat’s funeral? Yeah, I know, he wasn’t a religious leader, but they worshipped him nevertheless. Or how about when they dropped the Ayatollah Khomeini’s body during his funeral because of the rampant crowds? Now THAT was funny!

Remember: the morons spouting this idiocy are the ones from whom the majority of Americans get their news. That explains why half of them vote Democrat.

- The Exile

We Need Less Talk, More Action

U.N. Proposes Human Rights Council

As part of a package of reforms unveiled last month, the secretary-general proposed a human rights council to replace the present commission. The new council would be a permanent body, possibly on a par with the Security Council.

As a standing organ of the United Nations, the body would meet when necessary, addressing human rights violations as they arise. At present, the commission can only address issues during its annual six-week session.

I think Kofi Annan is himself a “standing organ”. And the fact that hundreds of thousands of people being murdered merits no more than six weeks out of their year shows exactly where the U.N. stands. Any more time devoted to it, and it may start to interfere with their oil-for-food-for-U.N-bribes work.

Council members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority and fulfill specific human rights criteria, according to the proposed reforms.

And I’m sure that the members would consist of Libya, Sudan, Cuba and China. Noted human rights abusers such as the USA, the U.K. or Australia would not even be able to apply (I was going to include Canada there, but the psychological abuse of their citizens by the Canadian government would put them in the former group).

Last year, the commission voted 50-1, with 2 abstentions, to express concern about the situation in Darfur, but stopped short of formal condemnation of Sudan. Even formal censure by the commission involves no penalties but draws attention to a country's record.

Well, at least they voted to “express concern”. Now if they’d just vote to give them a “stern look”, the situation would be resolved! But that would probably be taking it too far.

Tell me again: why are we paying for this joke?

Vive Le Pussie

From The Weekly Standard:

FREDERIC ENCEL, PROFESSOR OF international relations at the prestigious
Ecole Nationale d'Administration in Paris and a man not known for crying wolf,
recently stated that France is becoming a new Lebanon. The implication,
far-fetched though it may seem, was that civil upheaval might be no more than a
few years off, sparked by growing ethnic and religious polarization. In recent
weeks, a series of events has underlined this ominous trend.

On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through
central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government.
Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab
youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness
accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves
gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.

Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French
people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was
proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people
up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a
satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student,
already defenseless on the ground.

Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites"
don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an
Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he
"has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire to "take revenge on
whites."

Where do you start with something like this?

My first thought was that, if these protestors were anything like the ones we have in America, the same thing would happen. "Tens of thousands" of protestors versus "about 1000" thugs, and not one word of any of these Frenchmen fighting back. Shocking, huh?

(The other day my daughter asked me if I knew how to speak French. I told her to "repeat after me: 'I surrender' ". I told her that she now knew all she needed to know of the French language).

Could something like this happen in America? Possibly. At least until Conservatives' patriotism overcame their disgust with the protestors and we went out and took care of the situation. But only if the police didn't take care of the problem first, which I'm sure they would have. Not many liberals on the police force. Where were the Frenchie gendarmes anyway?

My next thought was, "Why haven't we heard about this in the MSM?". I had the answer before I had fully formed the thought: there's no way that they're going to report this because, not only does it put the French in a bad light, but it also points out that even non-white people behave like savages. That may undermine their multicultural mantra: non-white good, white bad (unless gay).

They like to tell us how all people are the same, but they'll latch on to a story about a couple of white morons beating a gay guy to death (i.e. Matthew Shepard, even though they did it to rob him, not because he was gay) and ignore a thousand non-whites attacking a bunch of kids.

After that, I thought about whether these cowards would have attacked an NRA rally. What do you think? I'd bet that they'd look at their shoes and shuffle away when they saw what they were up against in that case.

These people are cowards. They pick on high-school kids. People like this don't screw with anyone who looks like they may defend themselves. These are the same people whom we know as terrorists. They attack civilians, but would never think of attacking anyone who may kick their ass.

Unless, of course, they're going to blow themselves up; and then nobody can retaliate. I call that cowardice, too.

They did have one thing right, though: "little Frenchmen who look like victims." I'm pretty sure that Germany once looked upon them the same way. Looks like we'll have to bail them out again only to have them tell us what a bunch of idiots we are. Again.

- The Exile

You're a Looney

As I was driving home from work tonight, I was listening to a radio show on which the host put forth the fact that it was illogical that most Jewish Americans, of all people, opposed private gun ownership.

A woman caller began by saying that, as a liberal, her idealism trumped everything else. While she agreed that the host's point was logical and obviously correct, her idealism wouldn't allow her to agree with him!

Think about that statement; but not for too long or you'll get a headache.

What she's basically saying is that she knows that what she believes is male bovine excrement, but in striving to "make mankind better" (how arrogant is that?), she'll disregard all logic for no other reason than it doesn't fit her "idealism", which she knows is wrong (pass the aspirin, please).

Isn't that the definition of Orwell's "doublethink"? To be able to hold two contradictory beliefs at once? These people could have stepped right out of 1984.

It's no wonder that these people seem insane to us.

- The Exile

You're too Smart for That.

I keep hearing of this supposed pressure from the "Religous Right" since the last election, but I don't believe a word of it.

It's just another way for the MSM and the Left to make everyone believe that the Republican Party has been taken over by "religous fanatics".

What evidence is there? Bush hasn't done much but Social Security since the election. Not a very religous issue there.

The Congress stood up for Terri Schiavo but, religion aside, that was the right thing to do. Not to mention trying to put the Judicial Branch on notice.

Unfortunately the Left managed to spin Congress' stand against the Judiciary into "Congress poking it's nose into family matters" (and what, exactly, do they think that the Judicial Branch was doing that was any different??). Yeah, I know: States' rights and Federalism and all that. But it is perfectly right to bring things to the Federal level if you can't get anyone at the State level to take your side seriously.

Now that the Left has managed to shame the Congress, the Judicial Branch has free reign to do what they want. Congress will never have the guts to try again.

If you think that the courts have been bad in the past, hold on to your proverbial hats.

The charges that the "Religous Right" is taking over the Republican Party are a sham, put out there to scare the usual suspects who are barely paying attention to politics. Usually the ones who call themselves "Independents" and, almost always, vote Democrat. And it's working.

- The Exile

Clintons & China

I've been reading "Rewriting History" by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris. The book only intesified my disgust with the absolute sleaze in that administration, but one thing jumped out at me that sums up their character completely.

When the Clinton's were stealing everything that wasn't nailed down on their way out of the White House, they also took 137 five-piece sets of china. China that belonged, legally, to you and me.

Think about that: who needs 137 sets of china!?

I don't care how big their house is or how rich these people (you know, the ones who are "for the poor") are, they cannot seat 137 at their dining room table! So why did they take it?

Because they could. Because they wanted it. Because they thought they could get away with it.

And I doubt that it was even "they". Hell, Bill Clinton is happy eating McDonald's french fries right out of the bag. Do you think that he wanted 137 sets of fine china?

In other words, there really was no good reason to take it and, unless Bill wanted to hawk it at the Chappaqua pawn shop, it was most probably Hillary who took it.

Because she wanted it and would have thrown a tantrum if she couldn't have it.

I despise this woman and some of the details of what she's done are starting to slip my mind. Can you imagine how fast these details are fading in people who don't pay as much attention to politics as I do? Especially now that she's keeping a low profile for that very reason?

We need to keep this woman's sleaziness out there so people will remember it all when 2008 rolls around.

And remember, Condi for President kills Hillary's chances.

- The Exile

How Romantic

Romanticism can be a very good thing. Without it we'd live in a completely logical world and that would be pretty dull.

But when "romance" takes over your thought-processes to the exclusion of any logic or reality, well, then you have become a liberal.

I know that it has been posited a million times that Liberals "think" with their feelings, but I think romanticism comes closer to describing their real thought-process. Maybe they're one and the same and/or inextricably linked, but I'm no philosopher and live closer to the logical side of the equation. Or maybe I just ain't too bright.

At the place I work, Wal-Mart is probably our largest customer, so we pay very close attention to what they're doing. Today somebody e-mailed me an article about Wal-Mart's "Neighborhood Markets".

You may not know about Neighborhood Markets because they're only in 10 or 15 cities around the country, but they're smaller versions of the Wal-Mart Superstore. They're usually about the size of your local Walgreen's drug store. They're not nearly as profit-driven as their Superstores are.

But, of course, the Left is protesting even them, accusing them of (what else?) destroying the "Mom & Pop" stores of "small-town" America.

When the Left envisions "Mom & Pop" stores on "Main Street", what they see is a little storefront with a wood & glass door that has a bell mounted on it so that Mom and/or Pop can give you a big smile when you walk in the door and ask you if you'd like to sit by the woodstove and "warm yer bones for a bit".

In other words, a completely romanticized vision that hasn't existed since at least the 1960's. We have plenty of small towns in Minnesota, but in my 40 years I remember maybe one or two places that could have been considered even close to that vision.

They don't care that you have to pay more at M&P's General Store, they just want that warm, fuzzy feeling. The poor people that they constantly say that they're standing up for save money at Wal-Mart, but that never occurs to them, nor do they care. That warm, fuzzy feeling they get is all that matters.

Or how about Communism (I know, kind of a big leap there)?

When the Liberals envision Communism, they don't see the Gulags of the Soviet Union. They don't see the hundred million people that have been killed by Communist regimes. They don't see the poverty and shortages of goods that always result from Communist systems.

What they see is a system where everyone gives everything to the government, and this benevolent government splits it up into absolutely equal amounts and distributes it to "the workers". Kind of like a kindergartener bringing in a bag of candy and having the teacher distribute it to the students.

They never realize that in the real world, some people are corrupt, some people hunger for power over others and some percentage of "the workers" don't want to work and never will. It's really rather ironic that they never realize those things, because it's usually their side who are most guilty of those very things. If only they were running things, everything would be perfect!

But with romanticism comes blindness to reality.

- The Exile

Aids in Africa

OK, I've asked many, many people this question but none of them can answer it. I don't know the answer either.

Why is it that 99% of male AIDS "victims" here in America are either a) gay or b) drug addicts; but in Africa there are millions upon millions of males with AIDS?

I can understand why the women over there are, literally, plagued by it. Making children shows how much of a "man" their husbands are, and if they have to kill their wives in the process, so be it.

It's no different from black men here in America having children that they can't support and then abandoning them, thereby dooming them to a life of poverty. Then they actually brag about how many kids they have. That's how they define manhood.

I bet the "multicultural" gang won't like to hear that. We're only supposed to promote the good side of others' culture, not criticize the bad. Criticism is reserved for the White Male.

And, as in Africa, the people who can least afford it are squeezing out puppies as fast as they can. They can't feed themselves, but having 6 kids to prove that you're a man is a good idea.

Is that shocking to hear in this age of political correctness? I'm sure that it is to most people. But it's the truth and I've seen it many, many times with my own eyes.

So these guys in Africa are, apparently, forcing their wives to have sex with them so that they can prove their manhood. So much for the NOW gang in Africa. I guess Africans can't vote for liberal politicians in America, so African women don't count.

But that still doesn't explain how all of these men are getting it. I doubt that they're members of the BLT crowd (Bi-Lesbian-Trans or Bacon-Lettuce-Tomato) or that they're intravenous drug-users. So how are they getting it?

All theories are welcome.

- The Exile

Here's Your Real Peta

Here are the type of people we're dealing with on the extreme Left. Ya gotta click on the link and see this guy's picture. Everything that I've ever said about them being misfits makes more sense when ya see this guy.

From the AP:

SAN JOSE, Calif. - An animal rights activist was arrested on a domestic
terrorism charge after seven years on the run in connection with the release
of thousands of minks from commercial farms.

Peter Daniel Young, 27, could face life in prison if convicted of all charges, including conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce and animal enterprise terrorism, according to court papers.

Young fled soon after he was indicted in 1998 and was arrested March 21
at a coffee shop in San Jose, authorities said.

He and Justin Clayton Samuel, 26, were indicted by a federal grand jury
in Wisconsin in the release of minks from farms in Wisconsin, South Dakota and
Iowa, FBI agent Mike Johnson said Tuesday. They were accused of freeing
thousands of the animals.

Federal authorities suspect Young is affiliated with the activist group Animal Liberation Front. A telephone message left at the group's office in Canoga Park was not immediately returned.

According to a police report, Officer Ian Cooley witnessed
Young attempting to steal music CDs from the cafe. Young was arrested and
found to be hiding a handcuff key taped to his belt, according to the
report. A fingerprint search turned up the outstanding warrant.

Young also faces several charges in connection with the coffee shop
incident. He is being held in an isolation jail cell because he refused to
take a tuberculosis test, authorities said. Some TB tests contain animal
products.

Co-defendant Samuel was arrested in Belgium in 1999. He
pleaded guilty the following year and was sentenced to two years in
prison.

These people are nothing more than common criminals of the type that would shoplift from a coffee shop. And note the "James Bondish" trick of the handcuff key in the belt. That's something I might have thought up when I was 10.

And what kind of moron, who's on the run from Federal felony charges, is stupid enough to risk capture by shoplifting a CD? Easy: a moron to whom none of it is real. It's all just a childish game to him and he'll never really be caught and sent to prison. I'm sure that it'll become painfully real when he becomes some guy's "wife" in the Federal Pen.

And, what the story neglects to mention, is that the minks that this kind-hearted moron let loose were domesticated, and died in the wilderness because they didn't know how to survive. Every one of them!

There's your PETA for you.

- The Exile

Jesse Jackson: "More Me Now"

Just the other day I was wondering what had happened to Jesse Jackson. It had been awhile since he had reared his (really) ugly head. That was the day that I put the poll on my sidebar featuring the Godless Reverend.

Imagine my surprise when he suddenly shows up in the Terri Schiavo case. It turned into outright shock when he appeared on the side of the Right.

But then it occured to me that most of the headlines were being written about Terri's parents and not about her husband. That explained that. There was more publicity to be had on the parents' side and I'm sure that he couldn't find much of an angle to get in on the side of the pro-death Left.

Besides, there was no race issue involved, so it didn't matter which side he was on. If Michael Shiavo had been black, who among you doubts for one second that Jesse would be in his corner?

After massive voting (well, 7 votes) the consensus seems to be running toward Gangster, but I think Huckster is more fitting. This guy would push his own mother out of the way to get in front of the cameras.

By the way, have you seen this guy lately? He looks like a zombie! He was always ugly enough with those "Boston Terrier" eyes of his, but man, he looks like he's been embalmed. I don't know what could do that to a guy, but I wish I did so that I could avoid it.

- The Exile

One Down, Two To Go.

Well, we're down to the "inalienable" rights of "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". So much for Life.

33% of the way down the road to Socialism or outright Communism.

And Liberty is "iffy" when you consider how much the government intrudes on our daily lives and how "political correctness" no longer allows us to speak our minds.

You know, whenever I heard that old saw about Democracies lasting approximately 200 years and always being replaced by a Dictatorship, I envisioned the Executive branch turning into the Dictatorship.

It's fast becoming obvious that it's the Judicial branch that will get us there. They are taking over the governance of this country, and the other two branches are too afraid of offending people to do anything about it.

God, help my daughter. I'd almost rather it happens sooner rather than later so that I can help her along, but I'd guess we have about another 20 years before this country is run entirely by judicial fiat.

Does that sound paranoid? Conspiracy-theorist? Yes, to a point it sounds that way even to me. But I look at the judicial rulings regarding abortion, gay marriage, The Pledge of Allegiance, Terri Schiavo, prayer in schools, etc., and I see no one really trying to stop any of it.

The politicians in Washington are "full of sound and fury" but it signifies nothing. They don't have the spine to actually recall or impeach these despots in the black robes.

Could anything be more symbolic than people in black robes ruling our country?

- The Exile

Ham Lake or Guyana?

My daughter went to church with her Grandma for Easter. She brought home a program for the service. Imagine my amazement when I looked it over and saw the name of the pastor of her church: Jim Jones!

I told her that if they ever serve Kool-Aid, don't drink it!

Whattya know!

Michael Schiavo: The first heterosexual white American man that the Left has stood up for in recent memory.

Unless you count Michael Newdow. But, if you've ever seen this sniveling little boy on TV, you'd have to question his designation as a "man". That guy just screams "Pay attention to me!" with every word.

- The Exile

The Easter Bunny vs. God

Liberals don't believe in God. Liberals don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

Liberals aren't offended by the Easter Bunny. Liberals are offended by God. Why?

Well, their usual answer would be that the Easter Bunny never started a war (that we know of, anyway...).

But when is the last time the followers of the Christian God started a war in his name? Yes, we may have believed that he was on our side in more recent wars, but it must be 500 years since anyone started a war in His name. And never in America, which seems to be the place that the liberals believe offends most in this regard.

In fact, the only religion that I can think of which has regularly started wars in God's name is Islam. But the liberals give them a pass. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, seems to be the way they look at Islam.

Once you shoot that argument down, their next is that religion oppresses people. Apparently they believe that living by certain rules that are not of their own making is "oppression".

And again, when is the last time that followers of Christianity have actually oppressed people? I don't mean suggesting that people live in a certain way; I mean cracking down and forcing people to live the way that they want them to live. You know, kind of like Islam does.

In fact, if anything, it's the liberals who are oppressing people. You can't speak your mind if what you say disagrees with their political correctness. You can be fired from your job, kicked out of school, forced into re-education camps (called "diversity training") and in certain places (like Canada) actually arrested for saying what you think! And, with the "hate-speech" laws that are being pushed by the Left, they're trying to do the same thing in America.

I always hear college kids and other lefties saying how they don't want the "Religous Right" shoving their ideals down their throats. What exactly do they think that the "Secular Left" (odd how that phrase doesn't just roll of your tongue like you've heard it a million times) are doing to us with "gay rights/marriage", abortion, diversity, multiculturalism, et al.

Don't talk to me about oppression.

The liberals are offended by God for one reason: they don't want to be told that what they're doing is wrong. They want to be able to do whatever they want to. "Thou shalt not" is in direct conflict with "If it feels good, do it".

It's just one more thing that liberals and children have in common: they hate to hear the word "no", unless it's coming out of their mouths.

They are blind to their hypocrisy just as any child is.

- The Exile

Some Are More Equal Than Others

The Terry Schiavo case is just the most recent example that we're not living in a Republic, we're living in an oligarchy controlled by a few liberal judges.

(And for those of you that think we live in a Democracy, the best definition of Democracy that I ever heard is, "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner")

The conservative and moderate judges aren't any threat because they are interpreting the Constitution. They aren't making rulings based on what the Constitution would have said had they written it. But that's exactly what these liberal judges are doing.

What I don't understand is, why does everybody in the Legislative and Executive branches of this country just roll over when one of these judges makes some pronouncement from the bench? Why do these judges always have the last word?

The Constitution says that the Executive, Legislative and Executive branches are equal! Let me say that again: they are equal! In fact, if anything, Article III of the Constitution states that Congress has jurisdiction over the Judicial branch! Thats at the Federal level but, if I'm not mistaken, most states have basically the same outlook.

But when a Court makes a pronouncement, they all just say, "Well, that's it. They have the last say". They've resigned themselves to making laws at the whim of the Courts.

The Presidents/Governors and the Legislatures of this country need to get off their lazy asses and stand up to these fanatical ideologues. I don't expect the Democrats to do anything about it because they're afraid of offending their many constituencies who actually agree with these insane rulings.

Quite frankly, I don't expect much of anything from the Democrats at all. There's not a single one of them that actually owns a spine. No, not even Joe Lieberman, who sold out all of his principles to run with Gore in 2000, and then suddenly found them again when the race was over.

But the Republicans are a different story. Granted, there are many of them who are as spineless as the Democrats, (e.g. McCain, Snowe, Chafee among others), but there are some very good people on that side of the aisle and I just don't understand why they won't stand up to the usurping of their power that is being practiced by these judges.

It's doubly puzzling when you consider that the very power that is being taken from them by the courts is what many of them (on both sides of the aisle) live for, especially the Democrats.

They need to start standing up to these former ambulance-chasers-turned-judges and nullify their rulings. And impeach them when they go against what the Founding Fathers obviously meant (gun-control, so-called "separation of church and state" which doesn't exist) or miraculously find some right that nobody had noticed for 200 years (abortion, gay marriage).

And you need to write your Senators and Congressmen and the President now!

- The Exile

Greed is in the Eye of the Beholder

So which party is the "greedy" one?

From The Beltway Buzz at National Review:

***

An administration source has a funny story for Beltway Buzz readers. While traveling through the Southwest a few weeks ago promoting Social Security reform, the White House team encountered a group of about a dozen protestors outside an event in Albuquerque.
“There were twelve to fifteen of them outside. They were holding signs and heckling us as we went into the event. I didn’t think much of it, because you see this sort of thing happens almost anytime you are traveling for town hall type events.”

But what happened next is what caught our source’s attention:

“I was walking through the Dallas airport with some colleagues and one of them recognized two of the same protestors we had seen outside the event in Albuquerque. We had some extra time, so we decided to talk to them. They were very polite and explained to us they had just come from protesting an event nearby. One of them very quickly identified themselves as professional protestors.”

“Not that they just liked to protest, but that they actually got paid by liberal interest groups to travel the country protesting. Here they were, sitting in the airport TGI Friday’s having a burger and getting ready to travel to New Orleans for another protest. They were good kids and wanted to talk. We tried discussing some of the benefits of Social Security reform. They listened, but weren’t too interested. Not because they had opposing views, they just said they weren’t too educated on the details. They even admitted they didn’t know who it was they were going to protest in New Orleans.”

***

Thanks to The American Princess for this one

- The Exile

It's about time!

I finally figured out where to put the HTML for the sidebar. You'd never know I had a degree in computer programming (VB), would ya?

I added a new poll feature that I'll be updating whenever I get around to it. Maybe sooner.

I also figured out where to put the code for links. Leave it to me to choose the template with no link already written in. I've only added a couple of my favorites, but I'm sure that many more will follow.

- The Exile

Thought Police

There's a columnist called "C.J." in The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal (aka The Star Tribune) who refuses to call the city in which I reside by it's proper name, Coon Rapids. She believes that it is racist. She calls it "Racoon Rapids".

This city was named in the 1890's after a creek that runs through it called Coon Creek. Once upon a time there were racoons everywhere, feeding on the acorns from all of the oak trees that were here. The city's symbol is an oak leaf. It has nothing to do with race.

But she thinks that the word "coon" should be banished from the English language. Wouldn't that be insulting to the animals? Wouldn't that hurt their self-esteem? Is this "1984"?

These people are insane.

- The Exile

I Protest!

While watching the people who are protesting Terry Schiavo's attempted state-sponsored murder, I couldn't help but contrast them to the ones who were protesting the 2nd anniversary of Sadaam's Butt-whooping (I think that that should be the official name of it, not "The War in Iraq". It would just be funny to watch Peter Jennings [Canadian], et al, saying it on the news).

The people who were protesting Terry Schiavo's murder were quiet, concerned and very serious-looking.

The ones who were protesting the 2nd anniversary of Sadaam's Butt-whooping (see?) were dancing, laughing and having the time of their lives. The chanting and yelling seemed to have about the same emotional concern as a college football rouser.

These people really didn't seem to care about their "cause" nearly as much as the party atmosphere going on around them. And they didn't seem to be protesting Sadaam's Butt-whooping (OK, I'll knock it off now) as much as professing their hatred of George Bush. If it wasn't the 2nd anniversary of, well, you know, then it would have been something else.

The point is, these people are more interested in being a part of a club. Look at them closely whenever you see them on TV. They're all of the misfits from school whose only friends, if they had any at all, were the other misfits. The ones who never belonged anywhere or to any social groups. The ones nobody paid any attention to.

But now they've found a group that will accept them. As long as they profess their hatred of Bush and Conservatism in general. They don't even have to believe it, but I'm sure that most of them do. Or have convinced themselves that they do so that they can be part of this club.

They're no different than children throwing a tantrum to get attention. They couldn't care less about their cause, though I'm sure that they've convinced themselves that they do. They just want the attention.

A few years back I remember a case where a bunch of animal-rights protestors set a bunch of minks free. The minks had no idea how to live in the wild and died. Every last one of them. There was nary a word of remorse from any of them.

I've seen many, many web sites, posts, ads, etc. touting the belief that drinking milk is somehow cruelty to cows. These people have no idea what would happen to a cow if you didn't milk it. Hint: it will die! I'm a city-boy from way back, but even I know that.

I'm sure that the above has been pointed out to them. But they don't care. They just want the attention. I hear it from my 6-year-old daughter all the time: "Look at me, daddy!". The difference is that at least she's cute.

- The Exile

P.S. Does anyone know of any websites or anywhere else that I could find out where and when these protests are scheduled? I've always wanted to join them with a sign that says, "I am a moron" and march around in front of the TV cameras with the rest of them. Now that would be funny!

I wonder how long it would take them to notice. I wonder what their reaction would be. Do you think that these "anti-violence" people would politely ask me to leave? And, if they did and I refused, what then? Do you think that they might attack me? Now that would be even funnier!

I can't think of a better hobby.

Insulting the scarecrow

The Lefty at work who occasionally pops out of his hole to try to "debate" me started another about Social Security reform the other day.

In his reply to my reply he, of course, called my arguments a "straw man" an accused me of "ad hominem" attacks. All of my points were rock-solid and I insulted no one. But that didn''t matter.

If you ever "debate" liberals, you will constantly have them calling your points "straw men" and your replies "ad hominem" attacks. They all do it. It must be something they teach in Leftism 101.

Those two tactics serve two purposes for these left-wing children: A) they think that it makes them sound intelligent and, B) it saves them from having to respond to your facts, because they can't.

When they call your arguments a "straw man", they're trying to say that your points are based on false information and, therefore, not worth responding to.

When they accuse you of "ad hominem" attacks, it's their way of trying to say that you're just insulting people and not actually debating. You don't even have to insult anyone or anything for them to use this one on you. With Clinton-like semantic-twisting, they'll find an insult in there somewhere.

I really don't think that most of them even know what these two phrases mean. Like children repeating profanities, they just think that it makes them sound cool or intelligent even though they don't have the slightest idea what they mean.

Either way, it's just an immature way to dismiss your argument out-of-hand because they can't debate you on the facts. I told Lefty this the other day and I haven't heard from him since.

Imagine that.

- The Exile

But they're not hypocrites...just ask them!

This really needs to be passed around...

From The Weekly Standard:

Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item

A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:

In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:

The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.

Snow-angels in Hell

The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal is apparently looking for a new columnist.

From my fellow Minnesota bloggers at Fraters Libertas:

***

In the interest of adding more voices and perspectives to the paper, we are seeking candidates for a new Metro columnist position. As with all columnists, the emphasis would be on deeply reported columns, story telling off the news, pieces that can best be told with a columnist's leeway. This columnist would have the added goal of bringing a conservative perspective to the paper in story topics, circles traveled and views explored. Like the other Metro columnists, this person will write 3 columns a week and special projects from time to time.

***
Now all they have to do is hire 20 or 30 more and it will be almost balanced.

When evil Capitalist companies (other than their own) used to hire one black guy, they'd sneer at that company for hiring a "token" black. So what's the difference?

By hiring a conservative they will increase the number of columnists of that persuasion to exactly two. And the one that they already have, James Lileks, never speaks a word about politics in his column. Until he started showing up on Hugh Hewitt's show, I never had a clue that he was a Conservative.

But I'm sure that they'll trumpet this to the heavens and tell everybody, "See? We're not biased", and the sad thing is, they'll believe it. They already believe that they're not biased. They're only doing this to try to respond to the hordes of mail that they're surely getting blasting them for their left-wing bias and cancelling subscriptions.

It just goes to show that we are having an affect. It won't change the way they do business, but it shows that we are getting through to the people who used to take their drivel at face value, and that they are afraid.

- The Exile

Du bist ein Hippie!

Last night, as I was doing exhaustive research into the subject (i.e. sitting on the couch watching the History Channel), I came up with another reason why, though the Left always accuses the Right of being Nazis, it is they who are much, much closer to Nazi idealism.

What is one of the best-remembered symbols of the left-wing hippie culture of the 60's? The Volkswagen "bug", of course.

Did you know that it was everybody's favorite whacky Nazi, Adolph Hitler, who comissioned the design of that car? He did it so that all of the common "volk" could buy an inexpensive car and drive it on the centerpiece of his new Nazi regime, the Autobahn.

Makes ya think, huh?

- The Exile

Yes, There Are Differences

I hate to disparage the average Democrat because I truly believe that if they were to ever get both sides of the issues, at least 50% of them would become Republicans immediately. I believe that that's why Republicans are now ascendant: a lot of former Democrats have found alternate news sources and different points of view than the ones they have been subjected to from the MSM.

However, I also believe that there is one major difference between Democrats and Republicans: voting for your own self-interests or voting for the good of the country.

Look at the unions, for example. Most of the people in these blue-collar unions are Democrats. They're (relatively) hard-working people who have a lot in common with other blue-collar people on the Right.

When they vote, they seem to always vote on what's best for them, personally. Democrat candidates always promise them the world ( and rarely deliver) and the union pukes vote for them lockstep.

When my friends and I vote, we are always looking "long-term" at what's good for our children and our country 20 or 30 years from now. We realize things such as the fact that if we don't fix Social Security soon, our kids will be paying 70% of their income in taxes and that this country won't stand for that for long.

My mother is a lifelong Democrat who loves my daughter completely. She does, however, seem to have this blind spot when it comes to my daughter's future.

My mother votes Democrat because she's worried about her Social Security check. It doesn't matter how many time you explain to her that any of Bush's proposed changes won't affect her because she's already retired, it's as if she doesn't hear a word you say. She keeps up the same drumbeat of her taxes being raised or her benefits cut. And when you point out that it's always Democrats (i.e. Bill Clinton) who raise taxes on Social Security, she again tunes out. It's like she's deaf on this frequency.

In other words, she's fallen for the Democrat line of "Republicans starving the elderly" completely. It's no cooincidence that she gets her news from The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal and C-BS news. If she got both sides of the story, I have no doubt that she'd do what was right in the interests of my daughter.

I could somewhat understand her fears if she was living on the edge of financial ruin as the Leftist media like to portray, but she and my step-father are living a pretty comfortable life. She manages to go shopping every day of her life. They're living a lot better than I am and I'm supposed to be a "rich Republican".

(To my step-father's credit, I happen to know that he's voted for Bush in the past two elections, though he's a bit embarrased by it. He is, after all, a product of the Minnesota "Iron Range". They've voted for Democrats up there since the state was founded.)

What it all boils down to is that these people, who think that they're still voting for the party of John Kennedy, have completely ignored his best sound bite: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

The shrinking percentage of Democrats who are not the raving Leftists but the regular people, are looking for the Government to do things for them, personally, right now.

The Republicans are looking to the future. For my child and my country.

- The Exile

Isn't that cute?

I ran across this little scenario about a month ago on one of those insipid little blogs that details every moment of some family's existence. I've always wondered whether people do this just to entertain themselves or if they think anyone actually cares about the amazing exploits of their family. The former I could live with. The latter sends shivers down my spine.

Anyway...

***

"Tonight, Ella and I baked a cake for dessert. After dinner, we sliced four pieces and distributed them to the family. Before Ella would eat her piece, she wanted to explain to mommy how she made the cake, and my wife and I were listening to her story. Meanwhile, her two-year-old sister Chloe shovelled her cake into her mouth as fast as she could go. Chloe finished her piece then noticed that the rest of us still had cake left on our plates and started asking for more, then begging for more, then screaming and crying and whining "moooore." Ella cut off a piece of her own cake and put it on Chloe's plate, then gave her a kiss. What a great big sister."

***

That is the perfect metaphor for the whole liberals as children theory ( with Chloe, of course, posing as the liberal).

And I won't even get into the fact that it's amazing that this guy can type with his skirt billowing up in front of him like that. Just the fact that his kids are named Chloe & Ella tells me all I need to know about him.

Egads!

(I just revisited this guy's site and it really comes as no surprise that he's working to become a college professor and that he believes everything that Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Salon rave about. Oh, and [with apologies to The American Princess] his wife's a lawyer. Nice pants, lady.)

- The Exile

"I'd like to buy a clue, please"

I was reading this article about the mainstream media lamenting their loss of readers/viewers and a couple of paragraphs struck me:

***

Goldberg, the executive editor of the Mercury News, a paper that rose to national prominence with its territory, Silicon Valley, and slipped back, many think, when its owners seemed to put profits before vigorous journalism, spoke at the National College Newspaper Convention two weeks ago, and read out fainter heartbeat numbers: "More than 80 percent of adults read a daily newspaper 40 years ago. Thirty years ago that had fallen to 72 percent. Twenty years ago, it was 65 percent. Ten years ago, it was 61 percent. Last year, it was hovering just above 50 percent."

You don't have to be Price-Waterhouse to figure out what that means: Change and survival are synonymous right now for many journals and journalistic operations. "We all either will embrace change," said Seib, "or get run over by it."

Goldberg played with some of the ideas out there, ideas that would remake or create a new "mainstream" press, telling the student editors that it was their destiny to reinvent: "Maybe the answer is bilingual newspapers ... Maybe it's news blogs that update all day and automatically download to your iPod ... Maybe we should arm reporters with video and audio equipment so the papers' Web sites can broadcast what they are doing as it happens ... Or allow readers to subscribe only to certain sections of the paper ... Or let them post and publish their own news."

***
Does that "just above 50%" figure sound familiar to any of you?

Did anyone notice what Ms. Goldberg left out of her possible solutions?

George Bush won the election last November with...just above 50% of the vote.

And completely lacking in Ms. Goldberg's list of possible solutions to the problem is possibly hiring people who represent the huge number of people who have cancelled their subscriptions, i.e. Conservatives.

But it never crosses the minds of these people that large numbers of people just got so sick of the liberal message being shoved down their throats that they bailed out and now get their news elsewhere.

It's just that easy, but it's too complicated for a liberal.

- The Exile

Gimme back my money

As I was putting my Kindergarten-age daughter to bed a few minutes ago, she started to proudly show me some of the sign-language that she knew. I asked her where she had learned that and she told me that she had learned it in school. I smiled and told her that it was very good and that she was a very smart girl, but inside, "I got to thinking".

Now I'm sure that, to some of you, the following will sound like something from your typical heartless Republican. To others it will confirm their belief that republicans are "x_ists" (x is a variable that can be changed at will) who do not celebrate diversity in all of it's forms. Hopefully it will sound logical to most of you.

I got to thinking, "How many times have I actually needed to know sign-language in my 40 years on this earth?

Answer: 0.

"OK", I thought, "how many times would it have come in handy to know sign-language?"

Answer: maybe 10. Probably less.

So why is the Government school that my daughter attends wasting time teaching her to communicate with a tiny fraction of 1% of the population that depends on sign-language to communicate?

Wouldn't that time be better spent learning say, math, history, reading, writing or anything else that is going to be useful in her everyday life?

Don't tell me that these teachers are overworked, underpaid or trying to do their best for our children. If they think that they have the time to piss away on something like this, which is pretty much useless to my child, then they really don't understand the responsibility that they have. They think that their job is to have fun with the kids (which makes their job fun) and teach them their ideology which always seems to be dominated by "diversity".

Their real responsibilty is to teach these kids how to get along in the real world, not in a world that is 80% deaf or 80% Spanish-speaking. No matter how much they may dislike it, 80% of the population of this country is not deaf and speaks English. Why are they wasting my child's time?

I've taught my daughter to read, to add and subtract some pretty large numbers, to tell time on a non-digital clock and much more. The rest of the kids in her class can do none of these things. But, by God, they'll know sign-language just in case they run into a deaf person and there's no pencil and paper available!

So why do the schools waste time teaching the other kids, who can't even read, sign-language? It's 99% useless!

I see things like this and wonder how in the hell these people have the guts to whine about not having enough money. But then I realize that a lot of the people pay no attention to anything other than their local newspaper, news or CBS, NBC, or CNN. If they did, the Democrat party and their union supporters would be voted out in a landlside of epic proportions.

That's our job: let's get these average people who aren't paying attention to realize what they're actually voting for. I've turned a few people to what they formerly thought was the "dark side". If every one of us could do that, we'd have our country back.

- The Exile

Take heart

A former coworker and fellow member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" e-mailed me worried about Christians, the ACLU and what's happening in this country.

***

In a message dated 3/5/2005 11:08:26 AM Central Standard Time, ******* writes:

I think it is time Christians become a little more vocal and involved! Removing the basic principles this country was founded upon is going to be America's demise.

The other question I have and found no intelligent answer: Why is it we are supposed to accept the Gay and ACLU now with their anti Christ message when they were shunned not so long ago?

My Reply

I honestly believe that the tide has turned. The very fact that the Red Star Tribunal (aka The Minneapolis Star Tribune) would print this article praising religous values is a small bit of proof that the people have had enough of the liberal bullshit. And they know it.

The Left may try to fake a sudden belief in "moral values", but that will just put religion back out in the open where it belongs instead of hidden away and sneered at. They realize that they can no longer openly insult religous people and get away with it as they have for the past 30 years.

And Christians are becoming more vocal and involved. Big time! They got George Bush re-elected and, as far as vocalism goes, they were all willing to tell the exit pollsters that moral values was their top concern. They're speaking out and becoming more empowered all the time. The country wasn't taken over by liberalism overnight. What you're now seeing is the beginning of the pendulum swinging the other way.

The fact is, the ACLU wasn't shunned not that long ago. The reason that you're seeing more and more about them is that they're being "outed" as the extreme left-wingers that they are. Their squirming little lawyers are being exposed to the light of day, and most people are disgusted by what they're seeing.

Take heart. The libs see the writing on the wall and they are in an absolute panic. Why do you think that the Democrat party is in such disarray and keeps shooting themselves in the foot? They may be in denial but, deep down, they realize that the tide is turning against them.

***

I truly believe that what we are seeing is another revolution to undo the one that took place in the 60's and early 70's. While the Leftists of that time were screaming "Revolution" every chance that they got, nobody really believed that it was a real Revolution.

And now we're seeing another. Keep your powder dry folks, and keep fighting the good fight.

- The Exile

Unpatriotic, traitorous scum

If I hear one more Republican back down when a Lefty accuses them of "questioning their patriotism", I may just form my own party.

I'll go even farther than questioning their patriotism, I'll call them unpatriotic traitors and smile in their faces.

Ya want proof? OK, piece of cake.

They're only against things when America does them. If any other country does these things they have this amazing ability to ignore them or downplay them

Their main theme seems to be that they're "for the little guy.

Yet they were perfectly willing to let hundreds of thousands of "little guys" in Iraq die while they debated what to do about it for 12 years! I guess they only care for the little guys who can vote for them.

People would beg to be fed into Sadaam's wood-shredders head first, just so they wouldn't have to feel their bodies being chewed up as they died. Think about that! But a few more years of debate might have solved that problem.

And when George Bush sends our military in to stop these atrocities, they call him a mass murderer because we caused a few thousand "collateral damage" casualties. What we did to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people's lives is called mass murder, but you have to pry the words "mass murder" out of the Left when speaking of Sadaam, who killed a thousand times more people for no other reason than to hang on to Power. I guess that's a goal that they can relate to. Freeing millions of "little guys" is OK in theory, I guess. As long as you don't have to offend anyone.

They can't scream enough about abused women in this country, but they're perfectly willing to let the abuse go on anywhere else in this world.

Literally millions of women in other countries have been subject to "female castration" or what is actually a removal of the clitoris and sewing the labia closed. With no anesthesia.

Now, this is bad enough, but what you're never told by the media is that this is usually done by the victim's mother and other female relatives. The mother does it because after she gets old (say about 21) in the eyes of her husband, he may start eyeing his daughter as fresh meat. It's plain, old jealousy.

And when the poor girl finally gets married, her husband is given a "ceremonial dagger". Care to guess what this is for? Well, it's to cut her sewn labia open so that they can consumate their marriage.

Women in other countries aren't allowed to leave the house unless escorted by a male relative.

Women in other countries aren't allowed to drive cars.

Women in other countries are regularly killed because they have been raped, thereby soiling the family honor.

But, deep down, we're all the same, right? Yeah, right.

And in this country, you can be arrested for calling your wife a "bitch".

But it's America that's evil to these people.

It just goes to show that these people couldn't care less about the "causes" that they're whining about. Any "cause" will do, just so long as it can be used to bring down America. And just so long as it gets people to pay attention to them, just like any child throwing a tantrum.

I'd call that unpatriotic. I'd call that traitorous. I'd call that disgusting and evil.

And if any Lefty who stumbles across this cares to debate me, I have many, many more examples, such as real torture vs. "naked Twister" in Abu Ghraib. If it were up to me, I'd pick the naked pyramid over being beheaded any day. But to the Left, Abu Ghraib is worse than Auschwitz only because it was a few Americans who perpetrated it.

These people are disgustingly hypocritical. I really can't understand why more people can't see this. Have we as a people really become that stupid?

- The Exile

They eyes are the windows to the (lack of a) soul

Today, once again, I heard a whiney liberal call Dick Cheney and Karl Rove "evil geniuses".

Come on!

Dick Cheney looks like somebody's grandpa and Karl Rove reminds me of nothing more than the old cartoon dog, Droopy! These people are the best they can come up with for the evil geniuses who are behind the whole vast right-wing conspiracy?

Here's a little test. The next time that you see either of these guys on TV, look at their eyes. They seem engaged, amused, human.

In comparison, look at Barbara Boxer's or Hillary's eyes. Now, it may just be the Botox, but to me they seem to have the wide-eyed, glazed, soulless, staring look of the fanatic. And they're not the only ones in their party.

I first noticed this phenomenon during the 2000 Presidential campaign. Al Gore's eyes had nothing behind them. Nothing. He had lizard eyes. The best way I could describe it is that he looked dead inside.

Now, that's quite different from Boxer or Clinton. Their eyes look like they may, at any moment, begin rolling around in their sockets while their owners begin ranting the latest Democrat talking points faxed over from the DNC. Kind of like when Regan began speaking in tongues in The Exorcist.

It may sound as if I'm personalizing this too much, but I'm serious. Look at the eyes of the people on the Left and tell me what you see.

- The Exile

What's my Line?

For all of you who listen to "evil, right-wing extremist" talk radio, here's something that adds even more to the entertainment value.

When the host takes a caller and before said caller expresses his/her opinion, try to figure out whether that caller is a Lefty or a Righty.

I've got it down to where I can get about 90% right.

You can just tell by the whiny, soft-spoken, sneering, depressed tone of voice that they use to greet the host when a Lefty is on the line.

When it's a Righty, the vast majority of the time their tone of voice is happy, upbeat and confident.

Michael Medved's show is especially good for this game because he takes a lot of Lefties' calls. I've even tried this on Air Un-american's shows for the short periods of time that I'm able to listen to it and it works there, too, so it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the caller's attitude toward the host. It's apparently just their whole outlook on life.

Try it, it's interesting and fun.

- The Exile

Section IV, Paragraph II, Amen.

The whole issue of religous symbols on Federal property is in the hands of the Supreme Court. As I was listening to the debate on the news and talk-shows, it occured to me exactly why the Left hates the idea so much.

As I'm sure you've heard before, Government is the god of the Left. Therefore, the Government buildings are the churches of the Left. The Left hates Christianity the way Christians hate Satanism.

How would you like it if a bunch of Satanists put up symbols of their religion in your church? It's no different for them. Just a lot more pathetic when you look into the reasons that they worship Government.

- The Exile

Hooray for deficits!

The Democrats, for the first time in forever, are suddenly worried that we’re running a deficit. When they had control of both houses of Congress, they constantly pooh-poohed Republican complaints about the deficit. Now, however, it seems to be a big deal to them.

Well, here’s one Republican that says that deficits are a good thing.

In the 1990’s the State of Minnesota had some pretty large budget surpluses. The Democrat controlled Congress, predictably, went on a spending spree that would have made your proverbial drunken sailor blush.

They had all the self-control of a kid (huh, there’s that word again) in a candy store with a pocket full of money.

In the 1990’s the size of the Government here doubled in under 10 years! When the recession started at the end of the Clinton Administration, they just kept right on spending and, eventually, left us with a $4.5 billion deficit that had to be cleaned up by our Republican governor who, predictably, was (and still is) called a “meanie” when he had to clean up the mess that the Democrats made.

I’m sure that it’ll come as no surprise that I nor anyone else in this state is getting double the service from our government. Except maybe the government unions.

Our former Governor, Jesse “the Mind is a Terrible Thing” Ventura, made a deal with the legislature wherein they gave us back 1/3 of the surplus (which of course we were taxed on the next year), the legislature took 1/3, and Jesse threw 1/3 at his pet projects.

I heard an analogy back then that I thought was either amusing or infuriating:

You go into your local convenience store and buy a Sludgie. The clerk charges you $100 for your 89 cent Sludgie. When you complain to the manager, he takes $33, gives the clerk who made the mistake in the first place $33 and gives you $33, minus the cost of the Sludgie. When you complain about that he tells you that you should feel lucky that you got that much!

Would you put up with that at a convenience store? No, you’d call the police and report the theft. So why do you put up with it from your government? That's exactly what they're doing: taking more than they need and when you ask for the remainder back, they sneer at you and call you greedy.

The fact is, they will spend every dollar that you give them and more. The only thing that keeps them in check at all is the fact that they know people may vote them out if the deficit gets too big. And when we’re running a surplus, every one of them bellies up to the trough and takes whatever he or she wants. They spend it so fast that you literally can't keep track of it all and, before you know it, it's gone.

Just like children, they thought that the good times would never end, so they spent it all and more. When the economy finally crashed, as was inevitable, they were so addicted to having all the money that they wanted that they couldn't (wouldn't) stop. Next thing ya know, we're $4.5 billion in the hole.

Then, when the grown-ups took charge and cut their allowance back, they whined like the babies they are.

I’ll take a deficit anytime.

- The Exile