The EU Constitution is well on it's way to crashing and burning, and I'm sure none of the intellectuals over there can figure out why. *
The fact that it's based mostly on economic interests and not on ideals should give them a clue.
A Constitution has to be a starting point. A place where you say, "From now on, this is how the world will be." Instead, they changed nothing and just listed all of the wants and demands of the European elite as they now stand.
The United States Constitution takes up about 5 pages (according to MS Word). The EU Constitution takes up about 439 pages representing the interests of everyone from the Unions to the Reindeer herders of Lapland.
The equivalent in this country would be like the Democrats drafting a new Constitution and inserting every demand from their various constituency groups.
They'd insert individual "hate crime" rights as interpreted by GLBT's, blacks, "homeless" people, the "poor" and any other group that votes for them. That alone would take up 100 pages.
They'd insert a "progressive" tax code that would soak the rich at the expense of the less rich. That would take another 50 pages or so.
In other words, it would be a Constitution based on buying power and votes, written by a bearaucracy.
Our Constitution is based on Freedom and Liberty. Theirs would be based on 35 hour work weeks and 6 week vacations. There's a noble goal.
It's a Constitution based on the childish self-centeredness of the Left. If it doesn't have what they want, they're going to take their ball and go home.
And that's just fine by me.
*Proving my point, a large part of the article that I linked to above has to do with how France's "no" vote on the Constitution helps the UK's bid for the 2012 Olympics. It's all self-interest.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
Take a Break!
Well, I don't feel too bad. Apparently everyone else took a break from blogging this weekend. That's good. If politics consumes us, we'll be no better than Hillary.
I memorialized our troops by mowing my lawn and working on my house, neither of which I'd have if the Socialists took over and denied me the most basic of our rights, which is land ownership. Take that away and you can own nothing. Think about it.
Thank God for the people who are willing to go to war for us so that the protestors can still whine.
That says it all, doesn't it?
I memorialized our troops by mowing my lawn and working on my house, neither of which I'd have if the Socialists took over and denied me the most basic of our rights, which is land ownership. Take that away and you can own nothing. Think about it.
Thank God for the people who are willing to go to war for us so that the protestors can still whine.
That says it all, doesn't it?
Friday, May 27, 2005
Stupid is as Democrats Does
Canadianna got me thinking.
In any debate over the relative intelligence of the Left or Right, Lefties always claim the high ground. They claim that they are the intellectual elite, while any Conservative is usually portrayed as a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed moron.
And why do they consider themselves so far above we who are on the Right? Because they are the "intellectual elite" who are controlling the colleges and universities of this country.
Big deal. There are maybe a few thousand of them with a liberal arts degree that was turned into a PhD because of nothing more than their political views. Their thesis didn't have to make any sense whatsoever. As long as it meshed with their professor's political viewpoint, it was judged a passing grade.
As I've said before, some of the most idiotic people I've ever met had college degrees. Usually, college doesn't teach you how to think, it teaches you how to kiss your teacher's ass. If you do it for long enough, you get the Holy Grail of tenure.
But Liberals, having no grasp of the reality of numbers, think that because 1/100th of 1% of their ranks control the universities, that they are more intelligent than Conservatives.
Apparently, having a few thousand people in your ranks makes you the "intellectual elite".
It never occurs to them that the majority of the people voting for them are on the lower end of the IQ scale. They just know that they're smarter than the rest of the country!
Business degree vs. Liberal arts degree. Who do you think is more intelligent?
Running a business vs. running a beauracracy. Who do you think needs more brains?
IQ test. Any time, any place. Send us your best.
In any debate over the relative intelligence of the Left or Right, Lefties always claim the high ground. They claim that they are the intellectual elite, while any Conservative is usually portrayed as a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed moron.
And why do they consider themselves so far above we who are on the Right? Because they are the "intellectual elite" who are controlling the colleges and universities of this country.
Big deal. There are maybe a few thousand of them with a liberal arts degree that was turned into a PhD because of nothing more than their political views. Their thesis didn't have to make any sense whatsoever. As long as it meshed with their professor's political viewpoint, it was judged a passing grade.
As I've said before, some of the most idiotic people I've ever met had college degrees. Usually, college doesn't teach you how to think, it teaches you how to kiss your teacher's ass. If you do it for long enough, you get the Holy Grail of tenure.
But Liberals, having no grasp of the reality of numbers, think that because 1/100th of 1% of their ranks control the universities, that they are more intelligent than Conservatives.
Apparently, having a few thousand people in your ranks makes you the "intellectual elite".
It never occurs to them that the majority of the people voting for them are on the lower end of the IQ scale. They just know that they're smarter than the rest of the country!
Business degree vs. Liberal arts degree. Who do you think is more intelligent?
Running a business vs. running a beauracracy. Who do you think needs more brains?
IQ test. Any time, any place. Send us your best.
Why Lie?
What the hell is wrong with people who vote for Democrats? They vote for people who will lie about the smallest thing, even when there is no reason to lie.
Last night I watched Senator Harry Reid say something to the effect of being "saddened" that they didn't get to vote on John Bolton's nomination to the UN, and then go on to blame the lack of a vote on the Bush administration's refusal to hand over every document in the country that has any pertinence to Mr. Bolton including, I assume, his 1st grade report card.
Harry Reid was not "saddened" by the lack of a vote. Quite the contrary, it was exactly what he was aiming for.
Why lie about that? Think about it.
He could have just said that he was glad that the vote was postponed because he disagrees with Mr. Bolton on ideological grounds, and that he wanted time to rally more support for his views.
Nobody would have faulted him for that. Yet he lied. Why?
I can almost see the reason people with no principles (other than Power At All Costs) would lie about bigger issues, but why lie about something so trivial and obviously untrue? It's pathological.
My ex-wife was like that. Lying was so ingrained in her, that she would lie about the most mundane things. It was a knee-jerk reaction. It was so ingrained in her, that she didn't even realize she was doing it half the time. It was just one symptom of some deep psychological problems.
Just like the Democrats in Washington, she was vaguely aware that the way she thought wasn't quite right, so she was always on the defensive. She considered any question to be a possible (probable?) attack and would lie about it to put herself in the best position to defend herself. Or so she thought.
The fact is, most of her lies were so silly and childish, that they were utterly transparent. Again, just like the Democrats.
And yet, almost half of the country votes for these people. Yes, I married one, but I eventually got rid of her when it became clear that it was never going to change and was seriously harming our family (country).
Will your "Joe-six-pack" Democrat ever do the same?
Last night I watched Senator Harry Reid say something to the effect of being "saddened" that they didn't get to vote on John Bolton's nomination to the UN, and then go on to blame the lack of a vote on the Bush administration's refusal to hand over every document in the country that has any pertinence to Mr. Bolton including, I assume, his 1st grade report card.
Harry Reid was not "saddened" by the lack of a vote. Quite the contrary, it was exactly what he was aiming for.
Why lie about that? Think about it.
He could have just said that he was glad that the vote was postponed because he disagrees with Mr. Bolton on ideological grounds, and that he wanted time to rally more support for his views.
Nobody would have faulted him for that. Yet he lied. Why?
I can almost see the reason people with no principles (other than Power At All Costs) would lie about bigger issues, but why lie about something so trivial and obviously untrue? It's pathological.
My ex-wife was like that. Lying was so ingrained in her, that she would lie about the most mundane things. It was a knee-jerk reaction. It was so ingrained in her, that she didn't even realize she was doing it half the time. It was just one symptom of some deep psychological problems.
Just like the Democrats in Washington, she was vaguely aware that the way she thought wasn't quite right, so she was always on the defensive. She considered any question to be a possible (probable?) attack and would lie about it to put herself in the best position to defend herself. Or so she thought.
The fact is, most of her lies were so silly and childish, that they were utterly transparent. Again, just like the Democrats.
And yet, almost half of the country votes for these people. Yes, I married one, but I eventually got rid of her when it became clear that it was never going to change and was seriously harming our family (country).
Will your "Joe-six-pack" Democrat ever do the same?
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Non-thinking Education
Not long ago my daughter brought home one of those innumerable fliers from school. At least this one wasn't begging for money, but something in it did catch my eye.
The flier said that the kids were going to be learning how to measure lengths and distances. They would be using cubes and craft sticks as measuring devices.
It occurred to me that it might be easier and more productive to just "skip the middle-man" and use rulers and/or tape measures.
Why say that your desk is 15 cubes wide when it's just as easy to say that it's 2 feet wide?
Is it just me or is that just plain logical? Apparently, in the environs of the Government schools it isn't, because when I suggested it to her teacher, she looked at me as if I were speaking some lost language from the darkest reaches of Borneo.
It's no wonder that our kids aren't being taught how to actually think in these schools: their teachers don't know how to think! You can't teach something that you don't know.
I'm sure that she can teach the kids all about diversity, environmentalism and bullies, but her college never taught her how to be in the least bit logical. Apparently, rational thought isn't important to the "educational community", which would explain why they're all liberals.
I would give my left arm to put my daughter in a private school but, unfortunately, it's not in the budget and, at present, there's no way that it can be.
Which brings me to another of those points that are just too obvious and nobody seems to ask: whenever you mention school vouchers, the usual suspects always say that "It would take money away from public education". Well, yes it would. But if the child using that voucher is no longer in the public education system, you don't need the money for that child. Right?
If the child isn't going to be in their school, they shouldn't care that there's no money to pay for that nonexistent child.
Why have I never heard anyone who matters ask that question? I can't be the only one who's thought of it. And if someone would actually ask it, maybe we could point out that they really don't want the money "for the children" as they always claim, but are using it to hire more "grief counselors", administrators, vice-vice-principals and anyone else who can jack up the numbers on their union rolls.
Yes, I may be more logical than a lot of people out there, but I'm not Spock! I honestly think that people are trying to think so deeply about political subjects, that they miss the easy questions that would blow the Left's arguments out of the water. I know they would, because whenever I ask them, people are left blinking and stammering for an answer. Because there is no answer.
I take that back. There is an answer, but they would have to admit their real motives, and I don't even think that they can do that to themselves.
The flier said that the kids were going to be learning how to measure lengths and distances. They would be using cubes and craft sticks as measuring devices.
It occurred to me that it might be easier and more productive to just "skip the middle-man" and use rulers and/or tape measures.
Why say that your desk is 15 cubes wide when it's just as easy to say that it's 2 feet wide?
Is it just me or is that just plain logical? Apparently, in the environs of the Government schools it isn't, because when I suggested it to her teacher, she looked at me as if I were speaking some lost language from the darkest reaches of Borneo.
It's no wonder that our kids aren't being taught how to actually think in these schools: their teachers don't know how to think! You can't teach something that you don't know.
I'm sure that she can teach the kids all about diversity, environmentalism and bullies, but her college never taught her how to be in the least bit logical. Apparently, rational thought isn't important to the "educational community", which would explain why they're all liberals.
I would give my left arm to put my daughter in a private school but, unfortunately, it's not in the budget and, at present, there's no way that it can be.
Which brings me to another of those points that are just too obvious and nobody seems to ask: whenever you mention school vouchers, the usual suspects always say that "It would take money away from public education". Well, yes it would. But if the child using that voucher is no longer in the public education system, you don't need the money for that child. Right?
If the child isn't going to be in their school, they shouldn't care that there's no money to pay for that nonexistent child.
Why have I never heard anyone who matters ask that question? I can't be the only one who's thought of it. And if someone would actually ask it, maybe we could point out that they really don't want the money "for the children" as they always claim, but are using it to hire more "grief counselors", administrators, vice-vice-principals and anyone else who can jack up the numbers on their union rolls.
Yes, I may be more logical than a lot of people out there, but I'm not Spock! I honestly think that people are trying to think so deeply about political subjects, that they miss the easy questions that would blow the Left's arguments out of the water. I know they would, because whenever I ask them, people are left blinking and stammering for an answer. Because there is no answer.
I take that back. There is an answer, but they would have to admit their real motives, and I don't even think that they can do that to themselves.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Could it be?
From Reuters:
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday denied a report that he authorized the military to shoot down a small plane that prompted evacuations of Washington power centers earlier this month.
The Washington Post, quoting federal officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, reported on Wednesday that Rumsfeld had given the military authority to take the action, if necessary, against the Cessna 150 that had wandered into restricted airspace over the Washington area on May 11.
Gee, while trying to show what a bloodthirsty killer Rumsfeld (and by extension the Bush administration) is, the MSM relies on anonymous sources and gets it wrong...again. Anyone shocked?
You'd almost think that it's a disinformation campaign to make the MSM look bad while Rummy and Bush roll around laughing at how easy it is to dupe these guys.
But I'll save that conspiracy theory for Air UnAmerican. I'd bet that it shows up within a week.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday denied a report that he authorized the military to shoot down a small plane that prompted evacuations of Washington power centers earlier this month.
The Washington Post, quoting federal officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, reported on Wednesday that Rumsfeld had given the military authority to take the action, if necessary, against the Cessna 150 that had wandered into restricted airspace over the Washington area on May 11.
Gee, while trying to show what a bloodthirsty killer Rumsfeld (and by extension the Bush administration) is, the MSM relies on anonymous sources and gets it wrong...again. Anyone shocked?
You'd almost think that it's a disinformation campaign to make the MSM look bad while Rummy and Bush roll around laughing at how easy it is to dupe these guys.
But I'll save that conspiracy theory for Air UnAmerican. I'd bet that it shows up within a week.
What Arrogance!
Apparently some "equal" branches of our government are more equal than others.
For their part, Senate Democratic Leader Reid and his House counterpart, Rep. Nancy Pelosi scheduled a "unity event" to argue that the agreement was a victory — and a message to the White House that the president must consult with Congress on future court nominees.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi apparently now expect the President to bow before them and kiss their rings.
If I were President Bush, I'd call a press conference and tell them that they can kiss my...well, you get the picture.
Why is it that Democrats in Congress seem to have no grasp of what the Constitution says? You would think that to get that far in politics, they'd have to have at least read it! Or is it that they think that the Constitution is irrelevant when dealing with their vast intellect? God, what arrogance!
There is nothing in the Constitution that even vaguely suggests that the President should have to consult with the Legislative branch before sending his nominees to the Senate. President Bush, Senator Frist and any other Republican out there should start howling to high heaven about this.
The "checks and balances" system was put in place so that no branch of the government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) can usurp power from the others.
The Democrats whined about Republicans hurting our system of "checks and balances" when it came to disagreements between parties, which is not at all what the system was put in place for.
But they are perfectly willing to utterly ignore those checks and balances when it comes to the way they're supposed to be used: to balance power between the branches of government.
The Legislative branch has no power to dictate to the Executive branch! Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have no right to demand anything of President Bush!
Come on! I'm just a grease-monkey and even I know that! Why isn't anyone else saying the same thing? I have yet to hear any outrage against the Senate demanding that the President consult with them before he does anything. The Senate can do no such thing!
The minority party has taken over the Legislative branch and, without so much as a "Thank you, maam", they start dictating to the Executive branch! Once again, I thank God that the military hates these people or they would be dictating from the chair of a Dictator once the smoke cleared and the blood dried.
Is this just one of those things that's too obvious for the deep-thinking 'professionals' to see, or what?
For their part, Senate Democratic Leader Reid and his House counterpart, Rep. Nancy Pelosi scheduled a "unity event" to argue that the agreement was a victory — and a message to the White House that the president must consult with Congress on future court nominees.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi apparently now expect the President to bow before them and kiss their rings.
If I were President Bush, I'd call a press conference and tell them that they can kiss my...well, you get the picture.
Why is it that Democrats in Congress seem to have no grasp of what the Constitution says? You would think that to get that far in politics, they'd have to have at least read it! Or is it that they think that the Constitution is irrelevant when dealing with their vast intellect? God, what arrogance!
There is nothing in the Constitution that even vaguely suggests that the President should have to consult with the Legislative branch before sending his nominees to the Senate. President Bush, Senator Frist and any other Republican out there should start howling to high heaven about this.
The "checks and balances" system was put in place so that no branch of the government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) can usurp power from the others.
The Democrats whined about Republicans hurting our system of "checks and balances" when it came to disagreements between parties, which is not at all what the system was put in place for.
But they are perfectly willing to utterly ignore those checks and balances when it comes to the way they're supposed to be used: to balance power between the branches of government.
The Legislative branch has no power to dictate to the Executive branch! Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have no right to demand anything of President Bush!
Come on! I'm just a grease-monkey and even I know that! Why isn't anyone else saying the same thing? I have yet to hear any outrage against the Senate demanding that the President consult with them before he does anything. The Senate can do no such thing!
The minority party has taken over the Legislative branch and, without so much as a "Thank you, maam", they start dictating to the Executive branch! Once again, I thank God that the military hates these people or they would be dictating from the chair of a Dictator once the smoke cleared and the blood dried.
Is this just one of those things that's too obvious for the deep-thinking 'professionals' to see, or what?
McCain: More Me Now!
I've heard endless debate over the past two days over who won and who lost in the filibuster compromise. Nobody can seem to figure out who the winners and/or losers are. Why? Because there aren't any winners or losers. Nothing has changed.
It was a political sleight-of-hand designed to accomplish nothing more than get 14 left-wing Senators' names in the news as being "bipartisan".
The Democrats can still filibuster and the Republicans can still vote to end the filibuster.
The problem is, just as when the Democrats started filibustering judges for the first time in history and then, when we tried to stop them, accused us of "changing the rules", they'll now filibuster some judge as "too extreme" and, when we bring up the "nuclear option", they'll accuse us of backing out on the deal.
You know it's coming.
But that's OK. John McCain got his mug in the spotlight and managed to get in a shot at President Bush, whom he's still mad at for beating him in the 2000 primaries. After all, the MSM had christened HIM as it's darling! Mostly because they knew he'd be easy to beat when the real race began; but his ego won't let him see that. The Republican base would never stand behind him. And after this, any further political aspirations he may have had (e.g. the Presidency) are finished for good.
As long as we don't forget this. I, for one, intend to make sure that we don't.
What a pathetic little man he is.
It was a political sleight-of-hand designed to accomplish nothing more than get 14 left-wing Senators' names in the news as being "bipartisan".
The Democrats can still filibuster and the Republicans can still vote to end the filibuster.
The problem is, just as when the Democrats started filibustering judges for the first time in history and then, when we tried to stop them, accused us of "changing the rules", they'll now filibuster some judge as "too extreme" and, when we bring up the "nuclear option", they'll accuse us of backing out on the deal.
You know it's coming.
But that's OK. John McCain got his mug in the spotlight and managed to get in a shot at President Bush, whom he's still mad at for beating him in the 2000 primaries. After all, the MSM had christened HIM as it's darling! Mostly because they knew he'd be easy to beat when the real race began; but his ego won't let him see that. The Republican base would never stand behind him. And after this, any further political aspirations he may have had (e.g. the Presidency) are finished for good.
As long as we don't forget this. I, for one, intend to make sure that we don't.
What a pathetic little man he is.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Remove Their Propaganda
I have the perfect solution to help Newsweek not make the same mistake and get even more people killed: take away all of the copies of the Koran at Gitmo.
What the hell are we giving these people copies of the Koran for in the first place? This is the book that got these savages into their present mindset to begin with! It would be comparable to giving German POW's copies of Mein Kampf during WWII!
Who's bright idea was this anyway? "I know, let's give these people the very document that started them off killing us in the first place!"
God help us, but the military has become "culturally sensitive". I think that we should give them a copy of the Bible and The Constitution. Maybe that would help them evolve into at least the 19th century.
Do they give Christians a copy of the Bible when they capture them? No, they give them a knife across the esophagus.
Saudi Arabia shreds any Bibles if it finds foreigners trying to bring them into the country.
You can be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity in most Muslim countries.
But some Leftist rag publishes a story based on nothing, and 17 people die.
Because that's what these savages want to believe about America. And they'll just conveniently ignore the part of the Koran that speaks of Muslims not killing other Muslims.
I swear, these people are looking as hypocritical as Teddy (whattya you lookin' at?) Kennedy.
What the hell are we giving these people copies of the Koran for in the first place? This is the book that got these savages into their present mindset to begin with! It would be comparable to giving German POW's copies of Mein Kampf during WWII!
Who's bright idea was this anyway? "I know, let's give these people the very document that started them off killing us in the first place!"
God help us, but the military has become "culturally sensitive". I think that we should give them a copy of the Bible and The Constitution. Maybe that would help them evolve into at least the 19th century.
Do they give Christians a copy of the Bible when they capture them? No, they give them a knife across the esophagus.
Saudi Arabia shreds any Bibles if it finds foreigners trying to bring them into the country.
You can be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity in most Muslim countries.
But some Leftist rag publishes a story based on nothing, and 17 people die.
Because that's what these savages want to believe about America. And they'll just conveniently ignore the part of the Koran that speaks of Muslims not killing other Muslims.
I swear, these people are looking as hypocritical as Teddy (whattya you lookin' at?) Kennedy.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Odds Aren't
Dennis Prager had an excellent point the other day: If the media doesn't have a left-wing bias, why does it always err on the anti-American side? Always!
The odds say that the media would occasionally err on the side of the military or the Bush administration, but they never do!
The next time some Lefty smirks when you cite media bias, shove that one in their face.
The odds say that the media would occasionally err on the side of the military or the Bush administration, but they never do!
The next time some Lefty smirks when you cite media bias, shove that one in their face.
Here and Now
With all of my ranting about how the Left are just children in disguise, I missed this one completely.
Bob over at either orr whacked me in the head with a big ol' shovel and opened my eyes on this one. It was always on the tip of my tongue, but he hit it.
The sad part is, once liberalism had a vision of the past, a comprehension that we are on a continuum that began long before our great-great-great-grandparents were conceived and that should continue - barring the ultimate cataclysmic event - for long after our great-great-great-grandchildren have passed on.
The Left lives in the "now" just as my daughter does. She just recently grasped the concept that I'm a lot older than she is. That I've been around for far longer than she has.
It explains so much.
- They call Conservatives Nazis because they have no grasp of what the Nazis really were.
- They still embrace Communism because they have no real idea of the atrocities committed by all Communist regimes. I'm sure that they've heard about them, but it's just not real to them.
- They call the Bush administration "the most corrupt administration in history" because they don't know how corrupt some of the past administrations (i.e. LBJ's) have been.
- As I''ve noted in the past, they're trying to overcome thousands of years of evolution (i.e. men & women are equal, end of all wars, etc.) in their puny lifetimes, because they really can't grasp the difference between 70 years and 10,000 years.
Here's another one of those things where the examples are endless, but you get the idea.
Thanks, Bob. Consider yourself linked.
Bob over at either orr whacked me in the head with a big ol' shovel and opened my eyes on this one. It was always on the tip of my tongue, but he hit it.
The sad part is, once liberalism had a vision of the past, a comprehension that we are on a continuum that began long before our great-great-great-grandparents were conceived and that should continue - barring the ultimate cataclysmic event - for long after our great-great-great-grandchildren have passed on.
The Left lives in the "now" just as my daughter does. She just recently grasped the concept that I'm a lot older than she is. That I've been around for far longer than she has.
It explains so much.
- They call Conservatives Nazis because they have no grasp of what the Nazis really were.
- They still embrace Communism because they have no real idea of the atrocities committed by all Communist regimes. I'm sure that they've heard about them, but it's just not real to them.
- They call the Bush administration "the most corrupt administration in history" because they don't know how corrupt some of the past administrations (i.e. LBJ's) have been.
- As I''ve noted in the past, they're trying to overcome thousands of years of evolution (i.e. men & women are equal, end of all wars, etc.) in their puny lifetimes, because they really can't grasp the difference between 70 years and 10,000 years.
Here's another one of those things where the examples are endless, but you get the idea.
Thanks, Bob. Consider yourself linked.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Still Looking
A month or two ago I was wondering what ever happened to Michael Moore? Nobody had heard him flapping his jowls for awhile.
Well, I'm still wondering.
It seems that the only place he exists anymore is on "extremist right-wing" talk-radio and blogs. The rest of the media apparently won't return his calls. In 1984-speak, he has become an "unperson".
I bet they wish they could do that with Howard Dean, too. Unfortunately (for them), they put him at the head of their party's mechanism. Ya gotta love it.
Well, I'm still wondering.
It seems that the only place he exists anymore is on "extremist right-wing" talk-radio and blogs. The rest of the media apparently won't return his calls. In 1984-speak, he has become an "unperson".
I bet they wish they could do that with Howard Dean, too. Unfortunately (for them), they put him at the head of their party's mechanism. Ya gotta love it.
Gentlemen, Start Your Brains!
Yesterday as I was driving home from work, I flipped the radio over to Air UnAmerican to see what the enemy was up to. Lo and behold, the first guy who called started talking about how all of the military base closings were being implemented in the North. After about 3 minutes of the host trying to get him to make his point, he finally stated his theory that, in preparation for the coming "civil unrest", which the Conservatives knew would be forthcoming from their policies, they were consolidating their forces in the South to deal with it (apparently believing that all of the "rednecks" in the South were in lockstep with them).
The scary part of this was that this guy didn't sound like some stoned college kid, or ex-hippie. This guy sounded like he was an otherwise rational person who has been driven over the edge by the left-wing propaganda. He is the exact type of person who I mentioned in an earlier post about normal people falling for the Leftist propaganda and turning into conspiracy theorists.
He, and many, many others in the Democrat party have quit thinking completely. They were never much good at it to begin with, but all reasonable thought has stopped.
On a side note, I've come up with another theory (just full of them...or something...aren't I?) on the whole "conspiracy theory Left" movement: I think that they're trying to show their intelligence by coming up with the latest, greatest conspiracy theory. This is now what passes for deep thought amongst the Left. They're trying to "one-up" the last theory by seeing how "deep" into the twisted psyche of the Bush administration they can delve. They're looking for their Al Franken "affirmation" from their peers.
As another example of this, I was at work today and one of my co-workers stated that he believed that "Bush will go down as the most corrupt politician in history". Well, it's obvious that he knows nothing of history but, then I asked him why, if that was so, Bush wasn't being officially investigated for anything? Clinton had been investigated for many years and for multiple scandals by his 5th year in office. Did he think that the Democrats who are calling him a "loser" and a "liar" and comparing him to Hitler are just too nice to make a fuss by calling for official investigations? Did he think that if the Democrats had the slightest bit of evidence about any wrongdoing that they wouldn't be shrieking to have it investigated?
He just blinked for a few seconds before hemming and hawing. He had no response. None. Why? Because there is no response. But more importantly, he had never thought about that before. He had absorbed everything he had been force-fed by the MSM for the past 5 years with no questions asked or logical thought.
The scary part of that is that, if this guy would stop and think about these things, he would be a Republican in a minute. He hunts and fishes, has snowmobiles and ATV's, has nothing but scorn for welfare queens and the whole PC "victimhood" culture of the Left, probably makes over $100,000 between him and his wife (yet he bitches to me about the "rich", of course) and is exactly the kind of person that the Democrats stereotype Republicans as being.
The Democrats are attacking him and his lifestyle, yet, because he can't be bothered to look into anything more deeply than The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal, he keeps voting for the very people who are attacking him.
I know many people like this. I'm sure that you do, too. Keep plugging away at them.
The scary part of this was that this guy didn't sound like some stoned college kid, or ex-hippie. This guy sounded like he was an otherwise rational person who has been driven over the edge by the left-wing propaganda. He is the exact type of person who I mentioned in an earlier post about normal people falling for the Leftist propaganda and turning into conspiracy theorists.
He, and many, many others in the Democrat party have quit thinking completely. They were never much good at it to begin with, but all reasonable thought has stopped.
On a side note, I've come up with another theory (just full of them...or something...aren't I?) on the whole "conspiracy theory Left" movement: I think that they're trying to show their intelligence by coming up with the latest, greatest conspiracy theory. This is now what passes for deep thought amongst the Left. They're trying to "one-up" the last theory by seeing how "deep" into the twisted psyche of the Bush administration they can delve. They're looking for their Al Franken "affirmation" from their peers.
As another example of this, I was at work today and one of my co-workers stated that he believed that "Bush will go down as the most corrupt politician in history". Well, it's obvious that he knows nothing of history but, then I asked him why, if that was so, Bush wasn't being officially investigated for anything? Clinton had been investigated for many years and for multiple scandals by his 5th year in office. Did he think that the Democrats who are calling him a "loser" and a "liar" and comparing him to Hitler are just too nice to make a fuss by calling for official investigations? Did he think that if the Democrats had the slightest bit of evidence about any wrongdoing that they wouldn't be shrieking to have it investigated?
He just blinked for a few seconds before hemming and hawing. He had no response. None. Why? Because there is no response. But more importantly, he had never thought about that before. He had absorbed everything he had been force-fed by the MSM for the past 5 years with no questions asked or logical thought.
The scary part of that is that, if this guy would stop and think about these things, he would be a Republican in a minute. He hunts and fishes, has snowmobiles and ATV's, has nothing but scorn for welfare queens and the whole PC "victimhood" culture of the Left, probably makes over $100,000 between him and his wife (yet he bitches to me about the "rich", of course) and is exactly the kind of person that the Democrats stereotype Republicans as being.
The Democrats are attacking him and his lifestyle, yet, because he can't be bothered to look into anything more deeply than The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal, he keeps voting for the very people who are attacking him.
I know many people like this. I'm sure that you do, too. Keep plugging away at them.
Mike and Ike, They Think Alike
Is it possible that Muslims are just lefties? Could it be that easy?
But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad says “The apology and retraction are not enough. “They (Newsweek) should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims.”
They're worried about having their feelings hurt. Hurt feelings are the equivalent of flying planes into buildings and sawing people's heads off.
That sounds just like the moral equivalence of the Left in this country. It's no wonder that they actually have sympathy for these terrorists: they think alike.
They're both immature and childlike, but in a very dangerous way.
But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad says “The apology and retraction are not enough. “They (Newsweek) should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims.”
They're worried about having their feelings hurt. Hurt feelings are the equivalent of flying planes into buildings and sawing people's heads off.
That sounds just like the moral equivalence of the Left in this country. It's no wonder that they actually have sympathy for these terrorists: they think alike.
They're both immature and childlike, but in a very dangerous way.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Iowanian Rampage
Now this is funny. From Iowahawk:
“It is important that we remember that Lutheranism is a religion of peace,” said Army spokesman Maj. Richard Lehrman. “And we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Lutherans to go on another bloody killing rampage.”
Read the rest of it at the link above. It's the funniest thing I've read in months.
(Tip o' the Hat: Right Wing News)
“It is important that we remember that Lutheranism is a religion of peace,” said Army spokesman Maj. Richard Lehrman. “And we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Lutherans to go on another bloody killing rampage.”
Read the rest of it at the link above. It's the funniest thing I've read in months.
(Tip o' the Hat: Right Wing News)
That''s No Ordinary Lightbulb! It's a Killer!
While continuing my self-education in all things fluorescent, I ran across a little something from the Energy Star website run by the EPA:
CHANGE A LIGHT, CHANGE THE WORLD
Changing the world starts with simple actions. When you replace light bulbs or entire light fixtures in your home with ones that have earned the ENERGY STAR, you contribute to a cleaner environment while saving yourself energy, money and time buying and changing lights in your home. Every American is encouraged to change out their 5 most frequently used light fixtures or the bulbs in them to ENERGY STAR qualified lighting. If every American home made this "5 light change" not only would each family save more than $60 every year in energy costs, but together we'd also keep more than one trillion pounds of greenhouse gases out of our air. That's a $6 billion energy savings for Americans equivalent to the annual output of more than 21 power plants.
OK, let's be generous and say that there is one home for every two people (give or take). We'll give them 140,000,000 homes.
Divide 1,000,000,000,000 pounds of gases by 140,000,000 and you get roughly 7143 pounds for 5 light bulbs. Divide 7143 by 5 and you get 1428 pounds of gases for every lightbulb!
Does anyone care to do the math on how many cubic feet 1428 pounds of CO2 would take up? Or how about a trillion pounds of the stuff?
I would love to see the figures that they used to come up with this. I'm sure that there are some truly hilarious assumptions made. My guess is that they took every person on earth (including the dead ones who voted in the last election) gave them a home of their own, and rated the light bulbs at 5,000 watts. Or something like that.
And they have no qualms about putting this stuff out there. Why? Because so many people in this country have been conditioned to believe whatever the government tells them, that they won't think twice about that ridiculous figure.
And it's all about money. They've learned that if they put these ridiculously large numbers out there, eventually the usual unthinking "Our Mother the Earth" suspects will pick it up and start protesting while they should be looking for work. And if they can panic enough people, they get more money. Nice game they have there.
(On that subject, I saw a great protest sign from the Right side. The rally must have been held on a Saturday. "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns!")
CHANGE A LIGHT, CHANGE THE WORLD
Changing the world starts with simple actions. When you replace light bulbs or entire light fixtures in your home with ones that have earned the ENERGY STAR, you contribute to a cleaner environment while saving yourself energy, money and time buying and changing lights in your home. Every American is encouraged to change out their 5 most frequently used light fixtures or the bulbs in them to ENERGY STAR qualified lighting. If every American home made this "5 light change" not only would each family save more than $60 every year in energy costs, but together we'd also keep more than one trillion pounds of greenhouse gases out of our air. That's a $6 billion energy savings for Americans equivalent to the annual output of more than 21 power plants.
OK, let's be generous and say that there is one home for every two people (give or take). We'll give them 140,000,000 homes.
Divide 1,000,000,000,000 pounds of gases by 140,000,000 and you get roughly 7143 pounds for 5 light bulbs. Divide 7143 by 5 and you get 1428 pounds of gases for every lightbulb!
Does anyone care to do the math on how many cubic feet 1428 pounds of CO2 would take up? Or how about a trillion pounds of the stuff?
I would love to see the figures that they used to come up with this. I'm sure that there are some truly hilarious assumptions made. My guess is that they took every person on earth (including the dead ones who voted in the last election) gave them a home of their own, and rated the light bulbs at 5,000 watts. Or something like that.
And they have no qualms about putting this stuff out there. Why? Because so many people in this country have been conditioned to believe whatever the government tells them, that they won't think twice about that ridiculous figure.
And it's all about money. They've learned that if they put these ridiculously large numbers out there, eventually the usual unthinking "Our Mother the Earth" suspects will pick it up and start protesting while they should be looking for work. And if they can panic enough people, they get more money. Nice game they have there.
(On that subject, I saw a great protest sign from the Right side. The rally must have been held on a Saturday. "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns!")
Our Differences Are Not Different
I found this paragraph in a story about Harvard caving in to the feminazis and giving them $50 million for women's programs.
The recommendations include a senior administrative post overseeing diversity and faculty development — which Summers had previously committed to — as well as better mentoring for faculty and freshmen interested in science, enhanced faculty benefits in areas such as child care, and safe transportation for researchers working in labs late at night.
Now, if these women want safe transportation late at night, wouldn't that mean that they believe that they're not as able to protect themselves as men are? In other words, they're (gasp) different than men?
I guess that once they extorted the $50 million, hypocrisy doesn't matter.
The recommendations include a senior administrative post overseeing diversity and faculty development — which Summers had previously committed to — as well as better mentoring for faculty and freshmen interested in science, enhanced faculty benefits in areas such as child care, and safe transportation for researchers working in labs late at night.
Now, if these women want safe transportation late at night, wouldn't that mean that they believe that they're not as able to protect themselves as men are? In other words, they're (gasp) different than men?
I guess that once they extorted the $50 million, hypocrisy doesn't matter.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Dadgummed Whippersnapper Blogs!
The MSM kind of reminds you of Grandpa in his last days. Doddering, can't remember where he put his dentures, getting everything mixed up, but insisting that he's as well as he ever was.
Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman said the magazine believes it erred in reporting the allegation that a prison guard tried to flush the Quran down a toilet and that military investigators had confirmed the accusation.
"The issue here is to get the truth out, to acknowledge as quickly as possible what happened, and that's what we're trying to do," Klaidman told the "CBS Evening News" on Sunday.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! CBS news. Truth. Stop it man, you're killing me! For once CBS news was able to feel morally superior to someone.
In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah called the alleged desecration a "brutal" form of torture and urged Muslims and international human rights organizations "to raise their voices loudly against the American behavior."
Yes, that's brutal. I'd much rather have my head sawed off by a bunch of Muqtars. I bet the Grand (Poobah) Ayatollah said nary a word about that brutality. Spare me your righteousness, pig.
These "journalists" are directly responsible for at least 15 deaths because of nothing more than their desire to make the Bush administration look bad. "Newsweek Lied, People Died!" Bet you won't see any of the ANSWER protestors out there chanting that one.
I don't know about your plumbing, but if I tried to flush anything much bigger than a matchbook down my toilet, let alone a copy of the Kuran, I'd be in for a long day of playing plumber.
Shouldn't that have raised a flag for the folks at Snoozeweak? Maybe these rich liberals have better plumbing than I do, but I doubt it (although a bidet wouldn't surprise me). It's just another case of them being so willing...no, eager to believe anything that makes Bush, Conservatives and/or the military look bad, that they jump on the story with absolutely no thought or fact-checking.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source"
I would bet anything that, if this source even exists, they have direct partisan links to the anti-Bush crowd. They always do. But that's never taken into consideration by the MSM. After the whole "Memogate" thing at CBS, you'd think that, for their credibility's sake, reporters would look more deeply into any charges that are made. But they never do. They never learn.
Wild accusations are made against John Bolton and the media runs with them. It takes bloggers about 5 minutes to find out that these accusations are being made by Democrat activists and outright Bush-haters.
No wonder they hate blogs! We are the future, and it really pisses Grandpa off.
Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman said the magazine believes it erred in reporting the allegation that a prison guard tried to flush the Quran down a toilet and that military investigators had confirmed the accusation.
"The issue here is to get the truth out, to acknowledge as quickly as possible what happened, and that's what we're trying to do," Klaidman told the "CBS Evening News" on Sunday.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! CBS news. Truth. Stop it man, you're killing me! For once CBS news was able to feel morally superior to someone.
In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah called the alleged desecration a "brutal" form of torture and urged Muslims and international human rights organizations "to raise their voices loudly against the American behavior."
Yes, that's brutal. I'd much rather have my head sawed off by a bunch of Muqtars. I bet the Grand (Poobah) Ayatollah said nary a word about that brutality. Spare me your righteousness, pig.
These "journalists" are directly responsible for at least 15 deaths because of nothing more than their desire to make the Bush administration look bad. "Newsweek Lied, People Died!" Bet you won't see any of the ANSWER protestors out there chanting that one.
I don't know about your plumbing, but if I tried to flush anything much bigger than a matchbook down my toilet, let alone a copy of the Kuran, I'd be in for a long day of playing plumber.
Shouldn't that have raised a flag for the folks at Snoozeweak? Maybe these rich liberals have better plumbing than I do, but I doubt it (although a bidet wouldn't surprise me). It's just another case of them being so willing...no, eager to believe anything that makes Bush, Conservatives and/or the military look bad, that they jump on the story with absolutely no thought or fact-checking.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source"
I would bet anything that, if this source even exists, they have direct partisan links to the anti-Bush crowd. They always do. But that's never taken into consideration by the MSM. After the whole "Memogate" thing at CBS, you'd think that, for their credibility's sake, reporters would look more deeply into any charges that are made. But they never do. They never learn.
Wild accusations are made against John Bolton and the media runs with them. It takes bloggers about 5 minutes to find out that these accusations are being made by Democrat activists and outright Bush-haters.
No wonder they hate blogs! We are the future, and it really pisses Grandpa off.
Please Don't Die!
While watching the tribute to Nancy Reagan on C-SPAN this weekend, it occurred to me that I really hope Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton live forever.
The MSM hated Ronald Reagan, but they actually gave his passing quite a bit of coverage. Can you imagine what it's going to be like when Carter or Clinton die?
With Carter it will be endless prattling about his Nobel Peace Prize. You know, the one he earned by helping a madman in North Korea attain nukes? Little to nothing will be said about his disastrous domestic policies that caused inflation to skyrocket and interest rates to hit 20%.
The Nobel Peace Prize should really be renamed the "Nobel Prize for Helping to Bring Down the Great Satan".
Clinton will be remembered for...I'm not sure. He never actually did anything while he was in office other than midnight basketball for kids who should be in bed resting up for school the next day. I'm sure that the economic explosion of the 90's will be attributed to him, though that was caused almost completely by the internet boom (You could, indirectly, attribute it to Al Gore I suppose. After all, he took the initiative in creating the internet).
And the love-fest will go on 24/7 for months. I my emigrate to the Yukon if that happens. If it isn't already full from the 3 Americans who may have actually followed through on their threat to move to Canada if Bush won.
The MSM hated Ronald Reagan, but they actually gave his passing quite a bit of coverage. Can you imagine what it's going to be like when Carter or Clinton die?
With Carter it will be endless prattling about his Nobel Peace Prize. You know, the one he earned by helping a madman in North Korea attain nukes? Little to nothing will be said about his disastrous domestic policies that caused inflation to skyrocket and interest rates to hit 20%.
The Nobel Peace Prize should really be renamed the "Nobel Prize for Helping to Bring Down the Great Satan".
Clinton will be remembered for...I'm not sure. He never actually did anything while he was in office other than midnight basketball for kids who should be in bed resting up for school the next day. I'm sure that the economic explosion of the 90's will be attributed to him, though that was caused almost completely by the internet boom (You could, indirectly, attribute it to Al Gore I suppose. After all, he took the initiative in creating the internet).
And the love-fest will go on 24/7 for months. I my emigrate to the Yukon if that happens. If it isn't already full from the 3 Americans who may have actually followed through on their threat to move to Canada if Bush won.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The Clinton Legacy
The pundits of the late 90's were worried about the effect that Bill Clinton's behavior would have on America. They were worried, and rightly so, about the message that it would send to us and our kids about sex, lying, justifying bad behavior, selfishness and more.
And they may have been right had 9/11 not occurred and stiffened a lot of spines. If we had been allowed to continue on with business as usual, we may not have been shocked out of the morass of "the end justifies the means" and "if it feels good, do it" relativism that he embodied.
Thankfully, many, many people were awakened by the tragedy of 9/11.
But Bill (and Hillary) Clinton's legacy does continue. You can see it every day in the likes of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, MorOn.org and all of the rest of the extreme Lefties who are willing to lie, spin, twist, shriek and ignore every principle but one: Power at any cost.
Like Bill and Hillary, they have abandoned all principles in their pursuit of power. No lie is too big. No political tactic is too extreme. No personal attack is unjustifiable. No want is to be unsated.
Bill was good at disuising his extremism. Hillary wasn't, but if she kept a low profile, she could manage to get some things done.
The current crop didn't learn the "disguise" or "low-profile" maneuvers, but just went right out there and used the rest of the Clinton low tactics of "power at any cost". They are screaming out their true beliefs and they're turning a lot of people off.
History will judge him harshly, but his true legacy is to turn his party into undiguised left-wing fanatics. Unlike Bill, the people who are using his tactics of attack & destroy don't have the charm to pull it off without seeming like fanatics.
Americans don't like fanatics of any stripe.
Let's hear it for the Clinton Legacy!
And they may have been right had 9/11 not occurred and stiffened a lot of spines. If we had been allowed to continue on with business as usual, we may not have been shocked out of the morass of "the end justifies the means" and "if it feels good, do it" relativism that he embodied.
Thankfully, many, many people were awakened by the tragedy of 9/11.
But Bill (and Hillary) Clinton's legacy does continue. You can see it every day in the likes of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, MorOn.org and all of the rest of the extreme Lefties who are willing to lie, spin, twist, shriek and ignore every principle but one: Power at any cost.
Like Bill and Hillary, they have abandoned all principles in their pursuit of power. No lie is too big. No political tactic is too extreme. No personal attack is unjustifiable. No want is to be unsated.
Bill was good at disuising his extremism. Hillary wasn't, but if she kept a low profile, she could manage to get some things done.
The current crop didn't learn the "disguise" or "low-profile" maneuvers, but just went right out there and used the rest of the Clinton low tactics of "power at any cost". They are screaming out their true beliefs and they're turning a lot of people off.
History will judge him harshly, but his true legacy is to turn his party into undiguised left-wing fanatics. Unlike Bill, the people who are using his tactics of attack & destroy don't have the charm to pull it off without seeming like fanatics.
Americans don't like fanatics of any stripe.
Let's hear it for the Clinton Legacy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)